Blanco v. Lazzareschi CA3

Filed 10/28/25 Blanco v. Lazzareschi CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

ENEDINA BLANCO, C100617

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0043042)

v.

RICHARD LAZZARESCHI et al.,

Defendants;

AYANNA DE LA TORRE-HERRERA, a Minor, etc.,

Intervener and Respondent.

Justo De La Torre-Blanco (Justo) died intestate in a construction site accident. The trial court’s judgment allocated a portion of the settlement proceeds to Justo’s mother, appellant Enedina Blanco (grandmother), for economic and noneconomic damages, and the remainder to respondent, Justo’s minor child (grandchild). On appeal, grandmother contends that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to award her noneconomic damages because, when compared to the tentative decision, the

1

judgment did not increase the amount allocated to her despite adding a noneconomic damages award; and (2) the trial court expressed favoritism towards children over adults at trial that contributed to its failure to award her any noneconomic damages. Grandchild urges us to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We disagree with grandmother’s first contention. The judgment explicitly awarded her noneconomic damages. It superseded the tentative decision and cannot be impeached by the tentative decision on appeal. As such, we need not address grandmother’s second contention. But we do not find the appeal frivolous simply because it is without merit. The judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Justo died intestate in a construction site accident. Grandmother filed a complaint for wrongful death as Justo’s successor in interest. Grandchild intervened, stating that she is the sole beneficiary of Justo’s estate and his sole successor in interest. Grandmother challenged grandchild’s standing, arguing that Justo was not grandchild’s father, and that Justo died unmarried and without issue. The claims by and against third parties were resolved. The trial court held a bench trial to determine: (1) who had standing to bring the wrongful death action; and (2) the allocation of the wrongful death settlement proceeds. In its tentative decision, the trial court found that both grandmother and grandchild had standing to sue because grandmother was a dependent parent and Justo was grandchild’s father. As for the allocation of settlement proceeds, “[b]ased on a reasonable calculation of financial support and life expectancy of [grandmother,] the court award[ed] her $100,000. The balance of the funds held in trust [were] awarded to [grandchild] as the sole and surviving child of Justo.” The tentative decision stated it would become the statement of decision and judgment of the court unless a party timely objected.