In the Matter of THE CRUZ FAMILY TRUST

Petitioner alleges that Scott Cruz was suffering from cancer prior to his death and expressly alleges that Scott was a dependent adult. The petition further alleges that Respondent wrongfully withheld trust assets during the period in which Scott was suffering from that condition.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Petitioner's favor, as the Court must at the pleading stage, the Court concludes these allegations are sufficient to support the inference that Scott's illness impaired his ability to carry out normal activities or protect his rights. The petition need only allege ultimate facts and need not plead evidentiary facts.

Whether Scott ultimately qualifies as a dependent adult within the meaning of the statute is a factual issue that cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Respondent's arguments that Scott continued to engage in certain activities despite his illness may be relevant to the merits of the claim, but do not establish that the claim fails as a matter of law on the face of the pleading.

Accordingly, the motion is denied as to the allegations premised on abuse allegedly suffered by Scott Cruz.

B. Allegations Relating to Mark Cruz

The motion is GRANTED insofar as it challenges Petitioner's standing to pursue claims predicated on abuse allegedly suffered by Mark Cruz. The petition alleges that Petitioner is Scott Cruz's surviving spouse and successor in interest. But the petition does not allege that Petitioner is Mark Cruz's personal representative, successor in interest, heir, or other person authorized to pursue claims belonging to Mark Cruz.

Instead, the petition alleges that Mark was survived by three children and seeks recovery of trust assets allegedly owed to those children. Although the petition asserts that Mark suffered from mental illness and required assistance with activities of daily living, the Court agrees with Respondent that the petition fails to allege facts establishing Petitioner's standing to prosecute a dependent-adult-financial-abuse claim on Mark's behalf.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to the dependent-adult-financial-abuse allegations premised upon injuries allegedly suffered by Mark Cruz.

C. Leave to Amend

The Court GRANTS leave to amend. Petitioner did not identify in her opposition how the standing defect could be cured and instead maintained that the petition is presently sufficient. Nevertheless, this is the first pleading challenge directed at these allegations.

California law strongly favors permitting amendment where there remains a reasonable possibility that a defect may be cured. On the present record, the Court cannot conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile. Petitioner shall file and serve any amended pleading within 20 days after service of the signed order.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is: - DENIED as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Scott Cruz; and - GRANTED with 20 days' leave to amend as to allegations and claims arising from the alleged dependent-adult abuse of Mark Cruz.

Respondent to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-23-002171 - MILES, JACOB AARON vs HUIZAR, RAFAEL, Jr - Defendant Truc Than Ly, El & El Wood Products Corp., and Metrie El & El LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternatively Motion for Summary Adjudication - SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have carried the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment pursuant to the application of the "sudden emergency," or "imminent peril" doctrine herein. Specifically, the documentary, deposition, and video evidence submitted herein supports the conclusion that Defendant Truc, acting with reasonable care, was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency he did not cause. (Shiver v. Laramee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 395, 397.)

The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a material factual dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden, as his responsive evidence gives rise to no more than mere speculation, cannot be regarded as substantial, and is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact. (See, e.g., Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163.)

CV-25-011530 - DIAZ, KIMBERLY vs BLYTHE, HOLLY YVETTE - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe - GRANTED, in part, as follows:

Preliminarily, the Court notes that while submitted as a single motion, the papers herein seek 3 separate orders concerning 3 separate discovery devices: Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; Special Interrogatories, Set Two to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe; and Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records directed to non-party In-N-Out Burgers. Such combined motions are disfavored.

In this instance, the Court finds that the issues presented with regard to the 2 sets of special interrogatories are sufficiently interrelated as to justify hearing concurrently in the interest of judicial economy, and for that reason the Court will consider those issues together herein. As to the remaining request for an order concerning the non-party deposition subpoena for business records, the Court declines to consider that issue in this context.

With regard to the issues raised herein with regard to Defendant Holly Yvette Blythe's responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, the Court notes the parties' agreement that the responses were untimely served. Therefore, objections were waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).)

On that basis, the assertion of objections and provision of responsive information subject to the same in Defendant's responses were without merit, entitling Plaintiff to an order compelling service of further responses, without objection. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.300(a)(3).)

Defendant's further responses to Special Interrogatories, One and Two, shall be provided within 14 days.