DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV-0203171·shasta·Civil·Probate / Civil
Hearing in 2 daysGRANTED

Ward, et al. v. Vibra Healthcare, LLC, et al.

Motion to Substitute Successor in Interest

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
64
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHauva Ward
DecedentRichard Ward
DefendantVibra Healthcare, LLC

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 23CV-0203171 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Substitute Successor in Interest: Plaintiff Hauva Ward moves for an order naming her as successor in interest to her late husband, Richard Ward’s claims in this action pursuant to CCP 377.31. The motion is properly noticed and unopposed.

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 the proposed 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 Hauva Ward as successor in interest for Decedent Richard Ward is GRANTED. 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 executed.

WRIGHT VS. TARGET CORPORATION

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