Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Complaint Filed on Behalf of Dead Party Properly Dismissed for Lack of Standing
No Error Found in Disallowing Amendment to Name Successor Plaintiff
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that the dismissal with prejudice of an action for lack of standing was proper where the named plaintiff had died before the filing of the complaint, and found that the request to amend the complaint to name a successor party, made for the first time in an opposition to the motion to dismiss, was properly denied.
Justice Helen Zukin authored the unpublished opinion affirming the judgment of dismissal by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lia Martin. Presiding Justice Brian S. Currey and Justice Audrey B. Collins joined in the opinion.
Listed as the appellant was named-plaintiff Robert Aprahamian, who died on April 20, 2020. Nearly seven months after his death, on Nov. 12, 2020, attorney Jack K. Kechichian of the Encino law firm Keosian Law LLP, filed suit in Robert Aprahamian’s name against California Capital Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing following the denial of a claim by the insurer relating to damage to the plaintiff’s Porter Ranch home caused by the Saddleridge Fire in October 2019.
Motion to Dismiss
In May 2022, California Capital moved to dismiss, arguing that the deceased homeowner lacked standing to pursue the civil action.
New counsel from the Keosian Law firm, Natalie Hairabedian Suri, took over the case and said in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that Kechichian inadvertently named Robert Aprahamian instead of designating the decedent’s son, Shaunt Aprahamian, as “successor trustee of the Robert H. and Nellie M. Aprahamian Living Trust” as plaintiff.
According to Suri’s opposition, Kechichian was notified of Robert Aprahamian’s death after the complaint was filed. She asserted:
“In the instant case, changing the caption from ‘Robert Aprahamian’ to ‘Shaunt Aprahamian, successor trustee of the Robert H. and Nellie M. Aprahamian Living Trust’ will do nothing more than correct the obvious mistake in form. The entire body of the Complaint and the nature of the action will be unchanged. Defendant…has always been on notice of the nature of the wrongs and the damages alleged in the Complaint. Thus, an amendment would not in any way commence a new action, but would relate back to the original Complaint.”
Standard of Review
Zukin wrote:
“[P]laintiff does not argue on appeal that he has standing to sue, rather that the court should have exercised its discretion to allow him to amend the complaint to substitute a personal representative in his stead. Thus, the proper standard of review for the court’s order is an abuse of discretion.”
The jurist said the record that was presented is inadequate, warranting dismissal of the appeal, but nonetheless reached the merits.
Citing the general rule that the authority of an attorney to act on behalf of his client expires when the client dies, she said:
“[B]ased on the record we have, we would nevertheless affirm the challenged order on the merits….Following plaintiff’s death, and with no substituted party in his place, plaintiff’s counsel acted without a client in filing and pursuing the complaint. Albeit plaintiff’s counsel expressed an intention to amend the complaint, she failed to do so….Plaintiff cites no authority to support a request to amend a complaint in his opposition to the motion to dismiss. As a result, we affirm the order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.”
The case is Aprahamian v. California Capital Insurance Company, B323041.
Gene A. Weisberg and Caroline van Oosterom of the Culver City firm of Gladstone Weisberg ALC represented California Capital. Siri handled the appeal, purportedly on behalf of Robert Aprahamian.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company