DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV-0203137·shasta·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

SMITH VS. BRIDGEWAY INN & SUITES, ET AL.

Motion to Substitute Successor in Interest

Hearing date
Jul 6, 2026
Department
64
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrederick Smith
OtherMargaret Smith
DefendantBridgeway Inn & Suites

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 23CV-0203137 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Substitute Successor in Interest: Plaintiff Frederick Smith (“Plaintiff” or “Decedent”) moves for an order substituting Margaret Smith (“Successor”) as successor in interest to Plaintiff.

Code of Civil Procedure 377.30 et seq. provides that a cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes to the decedent’s successor in interest, subject to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 7000) of Part 1 of Division 7 of the Probate Code, and an action may be commenced by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.

The Court finds that the causes of action alleged in this matter survive Decedent’s death within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20, and that Successor has submitted a declaration satisfying the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32, including a certified copy of Decedent’s death certificate.

The motion to substitute Margaret Smith as successor in interest for Decedent Frederick Smith is GRANTED. The caption of this action shall be amended accordingly. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint reflecting the substitution within 20 days of today’s hearing. A proposed order has been lodged and will be modified.

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. VS. SELLS

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share