Cavalry SPV I LLC vs Juan Ramos

Civil Procedure fits squarely into relief that the Probate Court has authority to grant, is referenced by the Probate Code as available within Probate Code proceedings, or is one of the few non-civil motions authorized by the Probate Code that are not within the Court's authority to bring its own motion for the relevant relief. (See e.g. Prob. Code, Sec.Sec. 552, 801, 2239.)

Unless a separate procedure is outlined in the Probate Code sections that authorize the motion (Prob. Code, Sec.1000), motions must also follow proper procedural pleading and notice requirements listed in the CCP, Cal. Rules of Court, and Probate Code, such as citation to authority/grounds for bringing the motion (CCP, Sec.1010; Keown v. Trudo (1925) 71 Cal.App. 155, 156) and containing a prayer for relief. (See e.g. Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413; Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376 ["a complaint must set forth the essential facts of the plaintiff's case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of the plaintiff's claim."].)

In this case, the "Status Report" that contained a vague motion does not satisfy any of the pleading or motion requirements in the Probate Code, CCP, or CRC. The filing does not cite to ANY authority (statute or case), does not clearly request affirmative relief, does not contain a prayer for relief, and appears to be attempting to cut off a known heir from Final Distribution of the proceeds of the estate, when no Petition for Final Distribution is before the Court for adjudication, all because the heir will not agree to be cut off or "settle" any potentially adverse claims.

Judging from the language in Probate Code section 11604, no assignment by the heir would pass muster anyway, under the facts currently before the court. Thus, any vague request for affirmative relief should be denied, and the Court should, at minimum, require a statutorily compliant Report of Status of Administration in order to determine whether to continue to allow the current personal representative to administer the estate.

[1] Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury. (Pen. Code, Sec.118(a).)