ALBERTO MURATALLA VS. JIMMY MURATALLA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066122    Hearing Date: June 3, 2021    Dept: 001

On April 9, 2021, Manuel Muratalla (“Manuel”) filed a Notice of Related Case indicating pending civil case VC066122 is related to pending probate law cases 17STPB04359 and 19STPB00994.[1] Department 1 received a courtesy copy of the Notice for consideration on May 12, 2021 and did not receive a timely response to the Notice. (CRC 3.300(g).)

CRC 3.300(d) requires that the Notice of Related Case “be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.” The Notice was filed in all three cases and served on all necessary parties.

Whether a pending civil law case is related to a pending probate or family law matter is a question determined by Department 1. (LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(2).) Pursuant to LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(2), “[w]here the cases listed in a Notice of Related Cases contains a probate or family law case, Department 1 shall determine whether the cases shall be ordered related and, if so, to which department they shall be assigned if the cases are all pending in the Central District or pending in two different districts.” Thus, Department 1 only considers whether a pending civil law case is related to a pending probate or family law case. Cases that are no longer pending (e.g. cases which have been dismissed or reduced to judgment) are not considered by Department 1 in ruling on a Notice of Related Case.

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (CRC 3.300(a).) The Notice indicates the cases here are related on all four grounds above.

In order of filing, the cases sought to be related are:

· Alberto Muratalla v. Jimmy Muratalla (VC066122) – initiated on February 17, 2017 when Alberto Muratalla (“Alberto”) filed a Complaint against Jimmy Muratalla (“Jimmy”) stating a single cause of action for partition and sale of real property—specifically 9027 Hegel Street, Bellflower, CA 90706 (the "Property" herein). The Complaint alleged the Property was "co-owned concurrently by [Alberto] and [Jimmy]" but that Alberto had a three-quarters interest in proceeds of the sale of the Property as Alberto possessed both "an undivided one-half interest in the whole of said property, as a tenant in common," and a "one-half interest in the remainder of the half interest in said property, as a joint tenant [with Jimmy]." The Complaint was filed by Martin Muratalla (“Martin”) and Teresa Sepulveda (“Sepulveda”) as Alberto’s agents pursuant to a Power of Attorney.

On October 26, 2017, the civil court substituted Martin and Sepulveda into the case to continue litigating Alberto’s claim as Co-Administrators of his Estate.

On November 29, 2017, the clerk entered default against Jimmy.

On January 9, 2018, the civil court granted Jimmy's application to set aside the default.

On April 20, 2018, Jimmy filed an Answer (1) denying that the Power of Attorney afforded Martin and Sepulveda standing to sue on Alberto’s behalf and (2) admitting that Alberto had an interest in the Property as a joint tenant but denying that Alberto had an interest in the Property as a tenant in common over and above his joint tenancy interest.

On June 30, 2020, the civil court substituted Manuel into the case as the personal representative of Jimmy's Estate to defend against the claim by Alberto’s Estate.

On July 7, 2020, the civil court issued a Trial Setting Order directing the parties to prepare for a two-day bench trial.

On February 8, 2021, the parties stipulated to continue the trial due to discovery delays and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on the trial.

On April 9, 2021, Manuel filed a Notice of Related Cases indicating this case is related to pending probate cases 17STPB04359 and 19STPB00994.

This case is currently pending in Department F of the Norwalk courthouse with a bench trial set for June 8, 2021.

· The Estate of Alberto Muratalla (17STPB04359) – initiated on May 17, 2017 when Martin and Sepulveda filed a Petition for Letters of Administration seeking to be appointed Co-Administrators of Alberto’s Estate after his death on March 3, 2017.

On June 16, 2017, the probate court appointed Martin and Sepulveda as the Co-Administrators of Alberto's Estate. Letters issued on July 31, 2017.

On June 20, 2018, Martin and Sepulveda filed a Status Report indicating they “cannot proceed in the probate matter until a determination is made in the civil action as to the amount of decedent's interest in real property located in Bellflower, California.” The probate court approved this Status Report on September 5, 2018.

On March 20, 2019, Martin and Sepulveda filed a Status Report indicating they “cannot proceed in the probate matter until a determination is made in the civil action as to the amount of decedent's interest in real property located in Bellflower, California.” The probate court approved this Status Report on May 30, 2019.

On March 3, 2020, Martin and Sepulveda filed a Status Report indicating they “cannot proceed in the probate matter until a determination is made in the civil action as to the amount of decedent's interest in real property located in Bellflower, California.” The probate court approved this Status Report on June 23, 2020.

On December 11, 2020, Martin and Sepulveda filed a Status Report indicating they “cannot proceed in the probate matter until a determination is made in the civil action as to the amount of decedent's interest in real property located in Bellflower, California.” The probate court approved this Status Report on May 3, 2021.

On April 9, 2021, Manuel filed a Notice of Related Cases indicating this case is related to pending civil case VC066122 and pending probate case 19STPB00994. Manuel also filed a Petition (1) for an Accounting; (2) for Suspension and Removal of Co-Administrators; (3) to Determine Title to Land and Order Transfer of Property to the Estate; (4) to Quiet Title to the Property; and (5) to Surcharge Administrators. The Petition asserted the existence of a trust document which, if executed by Alberto, would have placed into trust Alberto's interest in the Property “for 100% benefit to Jimmy Muratalla” and sought to quiet title to the Property.

On May 27, 2021, Manuel filed an Ex Parte Application to Consolidate the purportedly related cases.

This case is pending in Probate Department 9 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with the next hearing set for August 27, 2021 on Manuel’s Petition to Quiet Title.

· The Estate of Jimmy Muratalla (19STPB00994) – initiated on February 1, 2019 when Manuel Muratalla filed a Petition for Letters of Administration, seeking appointment as Administrator of the Estate of Jimmy Muratalla, who passed away on August 6, 2018.

On July 29, 2019, the probate court appointed Manuel the personal representative of Jimmy’s Estate. Letters issued to Manuel on August 8, 2019.

On March 5, 2020, Manuel filed a Status Report of Administration indicating there is pending litigation against Jimmy's Estate concerning Alberto's claimed interest in Jimmy's residence, which is the principal asset of the Estate. The probate court approved this Status Report on September 17, 2020 and continued the time to administer the Estate.

On April 9, 2021, Manuel filed a Notice of Related Cases indicating this case is related to pending civil case VC066122 and pending probate case 17STPB04359.

This case is currently pending in Probate Department 2D of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with the next hearing set for June 25, 2021—an OSC re: Petition for Final Distribution or Status Report.

Upon review, the Court finds the civil case is not related to the probate cases within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a). At the outset, the Court expresses no view as to whether the probate cases are related to each other. (LASC Local Rule 4.22 (relation of probate cases to probate cases is for the probate court)) Fundamentally, the civil case seeks a determination of the Estates’ interests in the Property pursuant to partition procedures. In that case, Martin and Sepulveda seek an order to sell the Property and claim a 75% interest in the proceeds on behalf of Alberto’s Estate. Manuel seeks analogous relief in his Petition to Quiet Title in probate case 17STPB04359, wherein he seeks to quiet title to the Property to Jimmy’s Estate pursuant to an unexecuted trust document and denies Martin and Sepulveda’s claimed 75% interest.

However, while there are overlapping issues concerning the Property, relation here would frustrate the goal of efficient judicial administration. The civil court issued its Trial Setting Order on July 7, 2020—however, Manuel did not seek either (1) any affirmative relief relating to the Property or (2) to relate or consolidate the civil case with the probate cases until April 9, 2021, just two months before trial, despite knowing of the pending civil trial. Indeed, Manuel stipulated to continue the civil trial for the convenience of the parties in February 2021 with no indication that he intended to seek reassignment to probate court, which would derail the civil trial. Manuel has offered no justification waiting until the eve of trial, arguing that a motion to consolidate “is essentially timely” if “brought at any time during the proceedings.” This argument is unpersuasive—there was no showing of diligence or timeliness in seeking to consolidate the cases on an ex parte basis less than two weeks before trial.

The fundamental purpose of relation and consolidation is the promotion of efficiency for the Court and the parties. Relation here would merely postpone trial to some unknown future date in the probate court. This would be significantly inefficient where the parties are already prepared for trial. Rather, the timing of the filings indicates Manuel did not promptly raise these issues in the probate cases, instead waiting until the parties were prepared for trial. Manuel argues relation would be efficient because the partition claim cannot be addressed “until there is a judicial determination of Teresa Sepulveda and Martin Muratalla’s authority to bring this action on behalf of [Alberto’s] Estate . . . and whether the Hegel Street Property is an asset of [Alberto’s] Estate . . . or [Jimmy’s Estate].” However, these issues were put at issue by Jimmy’s Answer in the civil case and moreover need not be determined by the probate court. There is no showing that it would be efficient to vacate the trial in the civil case merely for the probate court to address these threshold issues, which the civil court is capable of addressing at that trial. The Court therefore declines to relate the cases.

While the Court found sufficient exigency to address this Notice on an ex parte basis based on the approaching trial, the Ex Parte Motion to Consolidate must be denied on the merits. “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (LASC Local Rule 3.3(g).) Here, the cases have not “been related into a single department”—the probate court has not related the probate cases to each other, and the civil case is not related to either probate case within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a). Therefore, consolidation is unavailable here. Moreover, consolidation would be manifestly inefficient given the approaching civil trial, which will resolve any overlapping issues.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to relate pending civil case VC066122 and pending probate cases 17STPB04359 and 19STPB00994. The Ex Parte Motion to Consolidate is considered and denied on the merits.

Moving party to give notice to all parties in all cases listed on the Notice of Related Cases. 

Case Number: VC066122    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: SEC

MURATALLA v. MURATALLA

CASE NO.: VC066122

HEARING: 6/30/20JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Estate of Jimmy Muratalla’s motion for substitution of personal representative for deceased Defendant is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

The Estate of Jimmy Muratalla, by and through its administrator, Manuel Muratalla, moves to defend this action as Defendant Jimmy Muratalla’s representative pursuant to CCP § 377.41.

On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made. (CCP § 377.41.)

CCP § 377.32 states, in pertinent part, “The person who seeks to…continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: (1) The decedent’s name. (2) The date and place of the decedent’s death. (3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.’ (4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest….. (c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.” (Id.)

Manuel Muratalla has submitted his declaration pursuant to CCP § 377.32, attesting that Defendant Jimmy Muratalla died on 8/6/18, and that Manuel became the estate’s personal representative on 6/21/19.

The motion is GRANTED.

Case Number: VC066122    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: SEC

MURATALLA v. MURATALLA

CASE NO.: VC066122

HEARING: 1/14/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Estate of Jimmy Muratalla’s motion for substitution of personal representative for deceased Defendant is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

The Estate of Jimmy Muratalla, by and through its administrator, Manuel Muratalla, moves to defend this action as Defendant Jimmy Muratalla’s representative pursuant to CCP § 377.41.

On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made. (CCP § 377.41.)

CCP § 377.32 states, in pertinent part, “The person who seeks to…continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: (1) The decedent’s name. (2) The date and place of the decedent’s death. (3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.’ (4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest….. (c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.” (Id.)

Here, Manuel Muratalla has not filed a declaration pursuant to CCP § 377.32. Instead, the declaration attached to the motion is signed by defense counsel, which is insufficient under the code.