Eric Koopmans, et al. v. General Motors, LLC.

Case Number

22CV04365

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/06/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Substitute Executor, Lynda Koopmans, In Place of Deceased Plaintiff, Eric Koopmans

Tentative Ruling

Eric Koopmans, et al. v. General Motors, LLC.                   

Case No. 22CV04365

           

Hearing Date: March 6, 2026                                         

HEARING:              Motion to Substitute Executor, Lynda Koopmans, In Place of Deceased Plaintiff, Eric Koopmans

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiffs Eric Koopmans and Lynda Koopmans: Tionna Carvalho, Strategic Legal Practices, APC

                                    For Defendant General Motors, LLC: Mary Arens McBride, Ryan Kay, Erskine Law Group, APC

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiffs to substitute executor Lynda Koopmans in place of deceased plaintiff Eric Koopmans is granted. Lynda Koopmans shall be substituted as a party plaintiff in place of plaintiff Eric Koopmans, who is now deceased.

Background:

The first amended complaint (FAC) filed in this action on June 30, 2023, by plaintiffs Eric Koopmans (E Koopmans) and Lynda Koopmans (L Koopmans) collectively, Plaintiffs) against General Motors, LLC, (GM) is the operative pleading. As alleged in the FAC:

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with GM regarding a 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (the vehicle) that was manufactured and distributed by GM. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Defects in the transmission and engine manifested during the express warranty period, which substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle, and which fail to conform the vehicle to the terms of the express warranty. (FAC, ¶¶ 12-14, 27-32 & 34.) Though Plaintiffs presented the vehicle for repairs to GM’s authorized repair facility, those repairs were not successful. (FAC, ¶¶ 25, 27-33, 36-39 & 42-43.) GM has failed to either promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 25, 39, 43.)

The FAC alleges five causes of action against GM: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civ. Code, § 1791.1; § 1794 & § 1795.5); and (5) fraudulent inducement – concealment.

On November 20, 2023, GM filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-eight affirmative defenses.

On October 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the present motion for an order to substitute L Koopmans in place of E Koopmans. GM has not filed any opposition to that motion.

In support of the motion, L Koopmans states, under penalty of perjury, that they are the spouse of E Koopmans (or decedent), who passed away on July 5, 2025. (L Koopmans Dec., ¶¶ 1 & 3-4.) L Koopmans further states that decedent passed away with a last will and testament (the Last Will) that appoints L Koopmans as the Executor of decedent’s estate. (L Koopmans Dec., ¶ 5.) A copy of the Last Will is attached to L Koopmans’ declaration. (L Koopmans Dec., Exh. 2.)

L Koopmans asserts, as the Executor of the decedent’s estate, that they have a right to continue the prosecution of this action. (L Koopmans Dec., ¶ 6.) L Koopmans also states that no proceeding is now pending in California for administration of decedent’s Estate, and that no other person has a superior right to commence these proceedings or to be substituted for the decedent on the pending action. (L Koopmans Dec., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Analysis:

“A pending action or proceeding does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.21.) “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.20, subd. (a); Saurman v. Peter’s Landing Property Owner, LLC (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1148, 1165 [general discussion].)

There does not appear to presently exist any reasonable dispute that the causes of action alleged in the FAC by E Koopmans against GM, survive the death of E Koopmans.

“On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.) “This provision recognizes that ‘the personal representative or successor in interest has an absolute right to be substituted for the decedent.’ [Citation.]” (Adams v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 71, 79.)

The undisputed record reflects or indicates that L Koopmans is both the personal representative and ostensibly successor in interest of decedent. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11; see also In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152-1153 & Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 733-734 [general discussions].)

“The person who seeks ... to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following:

“(1) The decedent’s name.

“(2) The date and place of the decedent’s death.

“(3) ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for 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 (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 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.’

“(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.’” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (a)(1)-(7).) In addition, “[a] certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (c).)

The L Koopmans declaration, which is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, asserts that there is presently no proceeding for the administration of decedent’s estate. That declaration also includes, or sufficiently states, each of the matters required by Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 and described above. The L Koopmans declaration also shows, and includes a certified copy of decedent’s death certificate which states, the date and place of decedent’s death.

For all reasons discussed above, and as the motion shows that L Koopmans is the personal representative of E Koopmans who is now deceased, the court will grant the motion and order that L Koopmans be substituted as a party plaintiff in place of E Koopmans. The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted with the motion and intends to sign it.