Peterson v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co.

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Peterson v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. Case No. 24CECG00667

Hearing Date: July 30, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or in the Alternative to Stay the Action and Vacate or Continue Trial and Related Deadlines

Tentative Ruling:

To grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, as the sole named plaintiff has now died and there is no one left to prosecute the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.)

Explanation:

The court has the power to dismiss a complaint under various circumstances, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 581 to 583.110. However, “[t]he provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be an exclusive enumeration of the court's power to dismiss an action or dismiss a complaint as to a defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (m).) The court also has the inherent power “[t]o provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(3), para. breaks omitted.) Thus, the court has the inherent power to dismiss an action where there is no one left to prosecute the case.

Here, the sole named plaintiff, Ms. Peterson, has now died, and no successor in interest or representative of her estate has been substituted into the case. When a plaintiff dies, the action may continue only if the decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest is properly substituted into the action. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.10, 377.11.) Here, no one has been substituted into the action to represent the deceased plaintiff’s interests or to prosecute the action on behalf of her estate.

She did not have an attorney, so there is no one who can appear on her behalf. Thus, her claims are subject to dismissal unless someone substitutes into the action to represent her interests. While plaintiff’s husband has claimed that he is ready, willing, and able to continue the action on his own behalf, he has not taken any steps to appear formally in the case. He claims that he is in the process of retaining an attorney and amending the complaint to have himself named as a plaintiff, but so far he has not filed a motion to amend or taken any other steps to appear in the action.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss has now been pending for over four months, and the trial date is less than three months away. Thus, it does not appear that plaintiff’s husband has been diligently seeking to appear in the action to represent either his wife’s interests or his own. In the meantime, defendant is likely to be prejudiced, since it will have to prepare to defend itself at trial even though there is no plaintiff prosecuting the action. As a result, the court intends to grant the motion to dismiss the action for lack of a plaintiff who is ready, willing and able to prosecute the case.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on 7/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

21