Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF BERNARD

VICTORIANNE by and through its

successor-in-interest ZELDA

VICTORIANNE, BERNARD

VICTORIANNE II, and ZELDA

VICTORIANNE,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Order

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

WILLIAM GORE, and DOES 1 - 50,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Appoint Zelda

Victorianne as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Bernard Victorianne. (ECF No.

11).

I. BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs The Estate of Bernard Victorianne by and

through its successor-in-interest Zelda Victorianne, Bernard Victorianne II, and Zelda

Victorianne initiated this action by filing the Complaint against Defendants County of

San Diego, William Gore. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges seven causes of

action including: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (2) wrongful

death; (3) right of association; (4) failure to properly train; (5) failure to properly

supervise and discipline; (6) failure to properly investigate; and (7) Monell municipal

- 1 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

liability civil rights action. (ECF No. 1).

On November 4, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Ex Parte Motion to Appoint Zelda

Victorianne as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Bernard Victorianne. (ECF No.

11). On November 20, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 20). On

November 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 26).

II. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Defendants contend that Zelda Victorianne is not the personal representative of

the decedent or administrator of decedent’s estate. Defendants contend that she attests

in her affidavit in support of her request to be designated as the successor in interest that

there have been no estate administration proceedings, and thus she could not have been

appointed as decedent’s or estate representative.

Defendants further contend that neither the complaint nor the ex parte application

indicate whether decedent died intestate, without children, a spouse or domestic partner;

all of which bear on identifying the people to whom a surviving cause of action

devolves. Defendants contend that assuming the decedent died intestate, without

children, spouse, or domestic partner, and using the complaint allegations as a

reference, Zelda Victorianne would not be the only person to whom the decedent’s

assets, in this instance the survival cause of action, would devolve. Defendants contend

that the asset also passes to Bernard Victorianne, II, decedent’s father. (Cal. Prob. Code

§ 6402(b).)

Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne contends that because decedent’s estate was not

administered, a final order showing the distribution is not required. Plaintiff Zelda

Victorianne further contends that, as set forth in the death certificate of decedent (ECF

No. 11-2), decedent was unmarried at the time of his death and died without children.

Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne contends that she has complied with all requirements of Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code section 377.32 to commence a survival action a decedent’s successor

in interest. 

- 2 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. RULING OF COURT

In actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the survivors of an individual killed as

a result of an officer’s excessive use of force may assert a Fourth Amendment claim on

that individual’s behalf if the relevant state’s law authorizes a survival action. The party

seeking to bring a survival action bears the burden of demonstrating that a particular

state’s law authorizes a survival action and that the plaintiff meets that state’s

requirements for bringing a survival action.” Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police

Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). See also Fed. R.

Civ. P 17(b) (“[C]apacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state

in which the district court is held.”). Under California law, “[a] cause of action that

survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes

to the decedent's successor in interest, ... and an action may be commenced by the

decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor in interest.” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. §377.30.

A. Personal Representative

“[A] personal representative is by definition a court-appointed executor or

administrator of an estate, not merely an heir, ... and ... a personal representative must

be a person empowered by law to administer the decedent's estate.” Hassanati v. Int'l

Lease Fin. Corp., 2014 WL 5032354, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014). Plaintiff fails

to provide evidence that she is a court-appointed executor or administrator of the estate. 

Plaintiff’s affidavit states that “[n]o proceeding is now pending in California for

administration of the decedent’s estate. (ECF No. 11-1 at 2). Because Plaintiff Zelda

Victorianne fails to demonstrate that she is a court-appointed executor or administrator

of the estate, and her affidavit states that no proceeding is pending for administration

of the decedent’s estate, the Court finds that Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne fails to

adequately allege that she is decedent’s personal representative.

B. Successor In Interest

Because Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne has failed to allege adequate facts to show

- 3 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that she is decedent’s personal representative, Plaintiff must establish that she is the

successor in interest. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.30 (“A cause of action that survives the

death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes to the

decedent's successor in interest, ... and an action may be commenced by the decedent’s

personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.”); see also

Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1094 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006)

(“Where there is no personal representative for the estate, the decedent’s ‘successor in

interest’ may prosecute the survival action if the person purporting to act as ‘successor

in interest’ satisfies the requirements of California law...”). 

In California, the person who seeks to commence an action as the decedent’s

successor in interest is required to execute and file an affidavit or declaration under

penalty of perjury, stating: “(1) the decedent's name. (2) The date and place of

decedent’s death. (3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for the

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 ...

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 ... 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.’” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.32(a).

“Successor in interest” is defined as “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.” Cal. Civ. Proc.§ 377.11.

“Beneficiary of the decedent’s estate” means “[i]f the decedent died leaving a

- 4 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

will, the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action, or

to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under the

decedent’s will,” or “[i]f the decedent died without leaving a will, the sole person or all

of the persons who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that

is the subject of a cause of action...” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.10(a), (b). 

Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne’s affidavit states:

I, ZELDA VICTORIANNE, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and I reside in Costa Mesa, California. 

If called to testify to the matters set forth herein, I could and would testify to these matters based on my own personal knowledge.

2. The decedent is my son Bernard Victorianne.

3. Bernard Victorianne died in the city and county of San Diego, California, on September 19, 2012.

4. No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the

decedent’s estate.

5. A copy of the death certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

6. Your declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest and succeeds to

the decedent’s interest in this action.

7. 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.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

(ECF No. 11-1, Exh. A).

Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne’s affidavit provides no facts in support of her

assertion that she is the decedent’s successor in interest and succeeds to the decedents

interest in this action, as required by California law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

377.32(a) (“The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding ... shall

execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of

this state stating ... (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

- 5 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.’”); see also Dillard v. Curtis, No. C 04-1449 PJH, 2004 WL

2496130, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2004) (“Here, plaintiffs have provided no support for

their claim that David is Jerry’s successor in interest, or that he has the legal right to

commence or continue this action on Jerry's behalf.”). The evidence shows that

decedent was unmarried at the time of his death and died without children (See ECF No

11-2, Exh, B.), but provides no evidence of whether decedent died intestate or leaving

a valid will.

The Court cannot determine whether the decedent died intestate or leaving a valid

will and ultimately whether Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne is the sole beneficiary, which

is necessary to determine whether Plaintiff Zelda Victorianne is the decedent’s

successor in interest. See Cal. Civ. Proc.§§ 377.11, 377.10(a), (b). The Court denies

Plaintiff’s application for order appointing Zelda Victorianne as successor in interest

to the estate of Bernard Victorianne. See Cal. Civ. Proc. §377.30 (“[a] cause of action

that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding

passes to the decedent's successor in interest, ... and an action may be commenced by

the decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor in

interest.”).

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application for Order Appointing

Zelda Victorianne as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Bernard Victorianne is

DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 12).

DATED: December 16, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 6 - 14cv2170-WQH-BLM

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 6 of 6