Estate of Svetlana Leonidova Dayal vs Logix Federal Credit Union et al

Case Number

24CV01984

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) MTN TO PRECLUDE SVETLANA LEONIDOVNA DAYAL FROM ACTING AS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN THIS PROCEEDING; 2) Mtn to Compel Discovery Responses; and, 3) Mtn re Protective Order

Tentative Ruling

In the matter of Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna Daya v. Logix Federal Credit Union, et al., case number 24CV01984, there are three motions on calendar: (1) defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from appearing self-represented, (2) a motion for protective order based upon plaintiff appearing self-represented, and (3) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses.

Underlying all of these is what amounts a mistaken identification. Plaintiff’s original and first amended complaint (FAC, the operative pleading) identifies the plaintiff as “Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal” and the person appearing for the plaintiff is Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal, “Executor for the Estate of Svetlana Leonidovna Dayal.” Defendants’ point is that an executor of an estate may not be self- represented and may only appear by counsel. (City of Downey v. Johnson (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 775, 780.) This is because an executor is a person appearing in a representative capacity on behalf of a decedent’s estate, and not on their own behalf. (Id. at pp. 779-780.)

In opposition to defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from appearing self-represented, the plaintiff states that she is “acting in her capacity as the executor and principal party in interest of her own ‘living estate.’ ” (Opposition, at p. 2.) A review of the FAC demonstrates that the transactions at issue are all transactions with the plaintiff in her personal capacity. Plaintiff appears, albeit not clearly, to indicate that she has some form of revocable trust which is incorrectly named in the FAC as an “estate.” (E.g., FAC, ¶¶ 1, 16-18 & exhibits A, B.) “[A] sole trustee of a revocable living trust who is also the sole settlor and beneficiary of the trust assets he or she is charged to protect does not appear in court proceedings concerning the trust in a representative capacity. Instead, he or she properly acts in propria persona and does not violate the bar against practicing law without a license. ([Bus. & Prof. Code,]§ 6125.)” (Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1519–1520.)

The problem presented by these motions thus is an apparent misuse of legal terminology by the plaintiff. (The court notes that there is nothing before the court other than this apparent misuse of terminology to suggest that any legal “estate” is involved or that the plaintiff occupies the status of “executor” based upon any probate proceeding. In the event that there is evidence, not now before the court, that plaintiff is actually appearing in a representative capacity, this matter may be revisited.) The motion to preclude the plaintiff from appearing self-represented will therefore be denied. It may be necessary for the plaintiff to amend the FAC to correctly reflect her status so as to avoid this confusion in the future.

Insofar as the motion for a protective order and the motion to compel depend upon resolving the issue of counsel, the parties are ordered to further meet and confer regarding this discovery dispute, in person, by telephone, or by video conference, on or before March 10, 2025. Each party shall file and serve a report to the court identifying all remaining outstanding issues, if any, on or before March 24, 2025. The motion to compel and the motion for a protective order will be continued to April 7, 2025.