In the Matter of: Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent Robert G. Nielsen’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Respondent’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Self-represented Petitioner Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz filed her “Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Undue Influence; and for Damages for Elder Abuse” on October 19, 2023. The Petition apparently seeks to invalidate the Donna Marie Altieri Revocable 1997 Trust (“the Trust”). Petitioner also appears to bring a cause of action for financial elder abuse against Respondent. Petitioner alleges that her mother, Donna Marie Altieri (“Decedent”), created the Trust in 1997. Petitioner alleges that from the start, Decedent was pressured into creating the Trust by Respondent. (Petition ¶ 4.)

Petitioner also alleges that Respondent, who was in a “confidential marriage” with Decedent, along with several others, pressured, manipulated, and drugged Decedent for over three decades. (Id. ¶ 10.a.) Petitioner also alleges that Respondent coerced Decedent to amend the Trust one last time in 2021, a year before she passed away. (Id. ¶¶ 10.c, 17.) Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment invalidating the Trust and for damages against Respondent as a result of financial elder abuse against Decedent.

On December 5, 2024, this Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary adjudication directed to the first cause of action seeking to invalidate the Trust based on undue influence. On August 1, 2025, this Court, by its ruling on submitted matter, denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the December 5, 2024, order granting summary adjudication. As a result, only the second cause of action for elder abuse remains in the petition.

Respondent now moves for summary judgment on the basis that Petitioner does not have standing to assert a claim for elder abuse on behalf of the Decedent.

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.)

The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that '[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat UCI's summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v.

Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting C.C.P § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 939-940.)

At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make 'an affirmative showing' in support of its motion. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855 n.23; Addy v Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (CCP § 437c(p).) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Summary adjudication requires disposition of an entire cause of action or claim for damages. (CCP § 437c(f)(1); Hindin v. Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1256.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

Respondent’s separate statement includes the following facts claimed to be undisputed. The Decedent executed the Restated Amendment to the Trust on June 30, 2021. (UMF 1) The Decedent executed a Last Will and Testament (“Will”) on June 30, 2021. (UMF 4) Respondent is the executor of the Will. (UMF 6) The Decedent died on October 14, 2022. (UMF 2) Respondent became the sole trustee of the Trust. (UMF 3) The Will provides that all assets in the Decedent’s estate are to be distributed to the then-acting Trustee of the Trust. (UMF 5) The Trust makes no provision for Petitioner or any of Petitioner’s issue. (UMF 7) Petitioner has not been authorized to act on behalf of Respondent, the trustee of the Trust, with respect to the Decedent’s interest in any elder abuse action or proceeding. (UMF 8)

As stated above, Respondent moves for summary judgment on the basis that Petitioner has no standing to bring a claim for elder abuse. Upon the death of an elder or dependent adult, “the right to commence or maintain an action shall pass to the personal representative of the decedent.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.3(d)(1).) If there is no personal representative, the right to commence or maintain an action passes “to any of the following, if the requirements of Section 377.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are met: (A) An intestate heir whose interest is affected by the action. (B) The decedent’s successor in interest, as defined in Section 377.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (C) An interested person, as defined in Section 48 of the Probate Code, as limited in this subparagraph.

As used in this subparagraph, “an interested person” does not include a creditor or a person who has a claim against the estate and who is not an heir or beneficiary of the decedent’s estate.” (Id.)

CCP § 377.32 requires that a person seeking “to commence an action or proceeding or 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” containing certain information. The declaration must state that the person is authorized to act as the decedent’s successor in interest as defined in CCP § 377.11 or authorized to act of the successor in interest’s behalf. (CCP § 377.32(5)(A)-(B).) A successor in interest is “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a particular item or property that is the subject of the cause of action.” (CCP § 377.11.)

A personal representative “means executor, administrator, administrator with the will annexed, special administrator, successor personal representative, public administrator acting pursuant to Section 7660, or a person who performs substantially the same function under the law of another jurisdiction governing the person’s status.” (Prob. Code § 58(a).)

Here, Respondent’s evidence shows that he is the executor of the Decedent’s Will and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

thus is the Decedent’s personal representative. In addition, the evidence shows that Petitioner does not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in W&I § 15657.3(d)(1)(A)- (C). First, Petitioner is not an intestate heir of the Decedent as the Will distributes that entire estate to the trustees of the Trust. Petitioner is also not a successor in interest as she is not a beneficiary of the Decedent’s estate. Finally, Petitioner is not an “interested party” under Probate Code § 48. Probate Code § 48 provides: “(a) Subject to subdivision (b), “interested person” includes any of the following: (1) An heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary, and any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. (2) Any person having priority for appointment as personal representative. (3) A fiduciary representing an interested person. (b) The meaning of “interested person” as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and shall be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.” (Prob.

Code § 48.) “[T]he concept of an ‘interested person’ was well developed in California probate law. And as that concept was understood, it included the idea that the person had to have an interest of some sort that could be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding in question to be ‘interested’ in that proceeding.” (Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 712, 727.) Given that the evidence shows that Petitioner has no interest in any claim belonging to the Respondent and took nothing under the Will or Trust, she is not an “interested party.”

Respondent’s evidence shows that Petitioner is not the Decedent’s personal representative, an intestate heir, the Decedent’s successor in interest, or an “interested person” and thus that she has no standing to bring an elder abuse cause of action on the Decedent’s behalf. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Petitioner’s remaining cause of action for elder abuse. The evidence is sufficient to shift to Petitioner the burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

While Petitioner filed an opposition to the instant motion, she has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. First, as she did in connection with Respondent’s previous motion for summary adjudication, Petitioner has failed to file a proper responsive separate statement as required by CCP § 437c(b)(3). While she filed a document titled “Separate Statement of Undisputed OPPOSING Respondent Robert Gordon Nielsen’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Alternative Summary Adjudication”, that document does not respond to any of the nine undisputed material facts set forth in Respondent’s separate statement.

Instead, it contains arguments regarding the alleged abuse of the Decedent. “The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (Id.) A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 08/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53

(1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.) The failure to file a responsive separate statement is a sufficient basis in this instance to support granting the motion. This is true because Respondent’s separate statement sets forth facts related to the terms of the Trust and Will and how the Decedent’s estate was distributed to the trustee of the Trust and that no provision was made for Petitioner. Thus, as applied here, Petitioner’s failure to file a proper separate statement in opposition itself warrants granting of the motion.

While the Court need not proceed further in addressing Petitioner’s opposition, it notes that the opposition also fails to adequately address the issues raised by the motion. Petitioner’s opposition is once again replete with arguments that the Decedent was the subject of abuse by Respondent and that the testamentary documents were fraudulent. However, the Court has already granted Respondent’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action which sought to invalidate the Trust on the basis of undue influence.

Petitioner also includes a significant number of documents related to her own medical conditions. The issue on this motion is simply whether Petitioner has standing to bring an elder abuse cause of action on the Decedent’s behalf and none of these arguments relate to that issue. The only actual attempt by Petitioner to address the issue raised by the motion is her attempt to argue that she has standing as a successor in interest because she is the Decedent’s daughter. However, as set forth above, CCP § 377.11, defines successor in interest as “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a particular item or property that is the subject of the cause of action.” (CCP § 377.11.)

The statute does not provide that an individual is a successor in interest solely due to their status as a surviving child of the decedent and thus, the statute does not provide standing to Petitioner simply because she is the Decedent’s daughter.

As a result, based upon the evidence supplied in the context of this motion, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment must be and is granted. Respondent met his burden to demonstrate that Petitioner has no standing to bring an elder abuse cause of action on the Decedent’s behalf and Petitioner failed to meet her burden to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Respondent’s evidentiary objections are overruled. Even if the Court considers all of the material objected to, specifically, all of the letters and material included with Petitioner’s opposition, the above result would not change.

Respondent shall submit a proposed order and a judgment of dismissal pursuant to CRC 3.1312.