Motion to allow action to continue by successor in interest
First, the Paradigm Defendants submit no competent evidence of the parties’ arbitration agreement. The moving papers also do not state verbatim the relevant arbitration provisions or attach a copy to the petition, as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330. Although it is undisputed the parties were previously engaged in an arbitration proceeding, without competent evidence of a valid arbitration contract covering the scope of the parties’ dispute, the court cannot determine whether the parties were engaged in a contractual or voluntary arbitration.
The court does not consider Defendants’ evidence submitted for the first time on Reply. New evidence is not permitted on reply, as the opposing party does not have an opportunity to respond. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538; see also San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 312.)
Even if the court considered the new evidence on Reply, Defendants seek arbitration of claims other than the claims asserted in this action. A motion to compel arbitration in this case is not the proper vehicle to do so. In fact, ruling on the merits of Defendants’ requested relief would require the court determine on the merits of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims (i.e., whether Plaintiffs properly withdrew from the JAMS arbitration and whether Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees).
For these reasons, the court must DENY Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
Case Management Conference
The Case Management Conference is continued to July 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.
Plaintiff to give notice.
8 ShaunRae Toni Marie Frazee moves to allow this action to commence with Frazee Partners v. as the successor in interest for Plaintiff Gerald C. Lentz. For the Gledhill/Lyons, following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Inc. “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.” (
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?”
“Decedent’s successor-in-interest” means “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (a).) Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32, subds. (a)(1) through (7), sets forth the requirements for the affidavit.
The court finds that Frazee complied with Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32 by submitting her declaration and the attached exhibits. (See Decl. of Frazee, ¶¶ 1-6; Exhibit A [Certificate of Death] and Exhibit B [Certification of Trust]).
Accordingly, this action will be continued by Toni Marie Frazee as the successor in interest of Plaintiff Gerald C. Lentz, now deceased, in place and instead of Plaintiff Gerald C. Lentz.
Moving party shall give notice of this ruling.
Case Management Conference
The Case Management Conference is continued to July 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.
Plaintiff to give notice.
9 Sandoval v. Los Off calendar. Alamitos Unified School District
28