Dawn Musselman, Individually and as Successor-in Interest to the Estate of Rick Lee Musselman vs. Ronald Ellis

34-2022-00313492-CU-PO-GDS: Dawn Musselman, Individually and as Successor-in Interest to the Estate of Rick Lee Musselman vs. Ronald Ellis 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Substitute a Party Plaintiff in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

34-2022-00313492-CU-PO-GDS: Dawn Musselman, Individually and as Successor-in Interest to the Estate of Rick Lee Musselman vs. Ronald Ellis 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Substitute a Party Plaintiff in Department 8D

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Mariah Musselman and Rick Musselman, Jr.’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Substitute a Party Plaintiff is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident between Defendant Ronald Ellis (“Defendant”) and Decedent Rick Lee Musselman (“Decedent”) on September 26, 2021. Plaintiff Rick Musselman, Jr. (“RJ”) passed away on May 7, 2025. (See October 28, 2025 Notice of Death.)

Plaintiffs argue that RJ’s sole beneficiary, Amira Musselman (“Amira”), is a minor, and thus lacks capacity to continue the instant action as Decedent’s successor in interest. (Croxen Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7.) Amira’s mother has consented for Jennifer Paulman, who is Amira’s paternal grandmother, to act on Amira’s behalf with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action. (Croxen Decl., ¶ 11.)

Plaintiffs now move for an order substituting Jennifer Paulman to act on Amira’s behalf. Defendant opposes.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00313492-CU-PO-GDS: Dawn Musselman, Individually and as Successor-in Interest to the Estate of Rick Lee Musselman vs. Ronald Ellis 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Substitute a Party Plaintiff in Department 8D

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.30 states:

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.

Discussion

Defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied because while the complaint “bases all of its causes of action on” Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60, each of the causes of action alleged are survival claims, as opposed to claims for wrongful death. Defendant further argues that RJ failed to perfect his claim by filing an affidavit or declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32.

Defendant argues that because RJ did not file an affidavit before his death, Amira cannot now be substituted in as a Plaintiff. (See Opp., p. 4:12-13 [“And, of course, now a declaration can never be filed because RJ is no longer with us.”].)

However, Defendant has cited to no authority which states that claims improperly made under section 377.60 cannot for the basis of a substitution of Plaintiff. If, as Defendant argues, RJ’s portion of the claims do not survive his death, such a challenge may be made via a separate noticed motion. Defendant’s reliance on Adams v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 71 does not stand for the proposition that Amira should not properly be able to set into her father’s shoes, as is argued by Defendant, as there has been no motion for abatement.

The court in Adams explained:

Defendants facing a wrongful death action in which all the heirs should have, but have not, been joined are entitled to move to abate the action. The California Supreme Court in holding that a wrongful death action by only a portion of the heirs is not the action authorized by statute said, “All the heirs should, therefore, join as plaintiffs in an action by heirs, and if the consent of anyone who should be so joined cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant (§ 382) ... where all

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00313492-CU-PO-GDS: Dawn Musselman, Individually and as Successor-in Interest to the Estate of Rick Lee Musselman vs. Ronald Ellis 06/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Substitute a Party Plaintiff in Department 8D

the heirs are not joined, and timely objection is made on that ground by a defendant, the action should be abated, or, at least, the other heirs should be made parties.”

(Id., at p. 77 [emphasis original].)

Here, Defendant has brought no motion to abate the action. The Court is not persuaded that the purported deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ claims are sufficient grounds for denial of the instant motion. Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendant’s arguments that Amira cannot file her own affidavit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32(a).[1]

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute a party plaintiff is therefore GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are directed to file a proposed order consistent with the above ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

[1] See Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 614 [“Section 377.32, however, ‘does not require

that the affidavit be filed as a condition precedent to commencing or continuing the action.’”].)