Opinion ID: 213017
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing to Assert Survival Claims

Text: In § 1983 actions, . . . 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 citation omitted). In finding that Chelsey Hayes met California's statutory requirements to bring a survival action, the district court relied upon California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60. The district court erred in doing so because § 377.60 relates to wrongful death actions that are based on personal injuries resulting from the death of another, not survival actions that are based on injuries incurred by the decedent. See CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 377.60 (A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by any of the following persons. . . .); Schwarder v. United States, 974 F.2d 1118, 1123 n. 3 (9th Cir.1992) ([T]he cause of action granted by Section 377 to the heirs and personal representatives of a decedent is not derivative in character or a continuation or revival of a cause of action existing in the decedent before his death, but is an original and distinct cause of action granted to the heirs and personal representatives of the decedent to recover damages sustained by them by reason of the wrongful death of the decedent.) (quoting Van Sickel v. United States, 285 F.2d 87, 90 (9th Cir.1960); see also Davis v. Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., 27 F.3d 426, 429 (9th Cir.1994)) (In a survival action, a decedent's estate may recover damages on behalf of the decedent for injuries that the decedent has sustained. In a wrongful death action, by comparison, the decedent's dependents may only pursue claims for personal injuries they have suffered as a result of a wrongful death.). California's statutory requirements for standing to bring a survival action are stated under California Code of Civil Procedure § 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 & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1094 (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. . . .) (citing CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. §§ 377.30, 377.32). While claiming she is the decedent's sole surviving heir, Appellant fails to allege that she is her father's personal representative or successor in interest. Indeed, Appellant argues only that standing is appropriate under § 377.60, not § 377.30. There is no indication Appellant has filed the affidavit necessary under California law to commence a survival action as a decedent's successor in interest, see CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 377.32, or whether survival claims may now be time barred if Appellant has failed to do so. Because it is unclear on the present record whether Appellant has standing to assert survival claims based on her father's constitutional rights, we do not address the district court's further finding of qualified immunity in relation to the alleged Fourth Amendment violations. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the district court for a decision whether Chelsey Hayes has standing to assert survival claims based on alleged violations of her father's rights under the Fourth Amendment.