Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06672/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06672-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA ROBBINS, individually and )

as successor in interest to decedent )

MARIO PEREZ, RONIN RAY PEREZ, )

by and through his Guardian ad Litem, )

CYNTHIA ROBBINS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

CITY OF HANFORD, a municipal )

entity, CITY OF HANFORD POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, OFFICER DIENER, )

an individual, and OFFICER CHRIS )

JORDAN, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED )

CASE )

____________________________________)

CIV F F 04-6672 AWI SMS

Consolidated with Case: 

CV F 05-0147 OWW SMS

ORDER MOVING HEARING

ON DEFENDANTS’S

MULTIPLE MOTIONS AND

ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE A DECLARATION

REGARDING STATUS AS

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST

Currently pending before this Court are multiple motions filed by Defendants. The

motions are generally styled as motions to dismiss and in the alternative motions for summary

judgment. If a court considers evidence outside of the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss,

the motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b).

Both parties have submitted external evidence, such as declarations, with respect to the pending

Case 1:04-cv-06672-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

That is, the Court is not ordering Robbins to file a declaration that is false. 

daw 2

motions and made arguments regarding summary judgment. Given that both parties have

submitted materials that are outside the record, that the motions are styled in part “in the

alternative motions for summary judgment,” and that the parties have addressed summary

judgment in their pleadings, the Court will consider the external evidence submitted and will

convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motions into motions for summary judgment. 

With respect to Defendants’s Rule 12(b)(7) motion, Defendants have raised the issue of

whether Cynthia Robbins is actually the successor in interest of the decedent, Mario Perez. 

Robbins’s standing with respect to various claims are now in issue. A person may bring suit for

a survival claim as a successor in interest if there is no personal representative. Cal. Code Civ.

Pro. § 377.30; Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1094 n.2 (9th Cir.

2006). To qualify as a successor in interest, Robbins must file a declaration that conforms to

California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32. See Dillard v. Curtis, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

22926, 20-21 (N.D. Cal. 2004); see also Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1094 n.2. Robbins has filed a

declaration in opposition to the 12(b)(7) motion, but the declaration does not contain all of the

information required by § 377.32. Accordingly, the Court orders Robbins to file a declaration

that conforms to § 377.32, if she is legally able,1 in order to establish her status as successor in

interest of Mario Perez.

Additionally, the Court has reviewed its calendar and schedule and has determined that it

is necessary to move the hearing on Defendants’s currently pending motions. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Cynthia Robbins is to file and serve a declaration that conforms to California

Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32 on or by 4:00 p.m., May 24, 2006, if she is legally able

to do so; and

Case 1:04-cv-06672-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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 daw 3

2. The May 15, 2006, hearing date for all of Defendants’s currently pending motions is

VACATED and the new hearing date will be May 30, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06672-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 3