Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; OSC re: Dismissal; Trial Setting Conference
Further, the Court’s extension of comity to a foreign judgment, which is what Plaintiff seeks in her second cause of action, is an exercise of this Court’s discretion. In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 314 (“Extension or denial of comity is discretionary and is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard.”) Such an exercise is better done on a full record where the Court may weigh the evidence.
Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is denied.
The order to show cause is discharged. The Court will address the Ex Parte Application at the hearing.
Defendant is ordered to give notice.
107 2023-01401848 1. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 2. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal Moayedi vs.
3. Trial Setting Conference Petrossian If counsel for Plaintiff or Yasamin Ameri do not appear, then the Motion for Order Substituting Yasamin Ameri, Successor in Interest for Deceased Plaintiff and Granting Leave to File Amended Complaint (ROA 76) is DENIED in its entirety and this matter is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Should Counsel for Plaintiff or Yasamin Ameri appear at the hearing, the motion for an order substituting Yasamin Ameri (“Ameri”), as successor in interest, in place of Plaintiff Kamran Moayedi is continued to June 1, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C27 to give Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiencies set forth below. The motion for leave to file an amended complaint is denied without prejudice. The trial setting conference is continued to June 1, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C27. Plaintiff’s counsel or Yasamin Ameri are ordered to file documents correcting the deficiencies noted below no later than May 22, 2025. Failure to file any documents by May 22, 2026 will result in this Court dismissing this matter without prejudice at the June 1, 2026 hearing.
“On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)
“The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest” must execute and file an affidavit or declaration that contains seven statements, including a statement that “[t]he affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding” and that “[n]o other person has a superior right ... to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.” (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32, subdivision (a)(1)–(7), sets forth the requirements for the affidavit as follows:
(a) The person who seeks 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 stating all of the following:
(1) The decedent’s name. (2) The date and place of the decedent's death. (3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.” (4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest. (5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof:
(A) “The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.” (B) “The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.” (6) “No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.” (7) “The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”
(b) Where more than one person executes the affidavit or declaration under this section, the statements required by subdivision (a) shall be modified as appropriate to reflect that fact.
(c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Wm. Scott Ayers, submits a declaration stating that Plaintiff died on June 5, 2025, at Keck Hospital of USC, with a copy of the death certificate attached as Exhibit A (Ayers Decl., ¶ 2). Counsel further states that he represents Ameri and is authorized to act on her behalf as successor in interest (id., ¶ 3), that no other person has a superior right to substitution (id., ¶ 4), that Ameri has a viable wrongful death claim arising from the same incident (id., ¶ 5), and that the complaint should be amended to substitute Ameri and allow the action to proceed (id., ¶ 6).
Counsel’s declaration is insufficient to support substitution under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 because it is not executed by the successor in interest. Even if counsel’s declaration were permitted in place of Ameri’s declaration, it omits required statements, including whether any probate proceeding is pending and whether the estate has been administered or distributed, and fails to set forth facts establishing that Ameri qualifies as the decedent’s successor in interest under the statutory definition. In addition, the statute requires a certified copy of the death certificate, which is not provided.
Additionally, the motion seeks leave to amend but fails to identify or analyze any statutory basis for such relief, such as Code of Civil Procedure section 473, and therefore does not meet its burden. In addition, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate compliance with the requirements needed for leave to amend the operative complaint. Pursuant to Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a), the motion for leave to amend requires, not only a copy of the proposed amended complaint, but must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line
number, the deleted allegations are located; and must also state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) No such details have been submitted, only a copy of the proposed amended pleading.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.