Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon v. County of San Mateo

facts to bring an action on behalf of her mother’s estate as her successor in interest. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.32. Relevant here, Gatliff must state that she is Harmon’s successor in interest or is authorized to act on behalf of Harmon’s successor in interest with respect to the present action. Id. § 377.32(a)(5). But that statement must be accompanied by “facts in support,” which Gatliff’s declaration lacks. Id.; see Crosby v. County of Alameda, 2021 WL 764120, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021). In fact, her declaration is dated two days before the purported assignment of successor-in-interest rights from Harmon’s husband so it could not possibly include facts about that assignment. Gatliff also has not alleged sufficient facts in support of her standing to bring section 1983 claims based on the Fourteenth Amendment on her own behalf. A plaintiff’s interest in bringing those claims is based on their relationship with the decedent. Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2018). A biological connection alone is not sufficient, nor are allegations of a close relationship or affection. Id. at 1058; Terry v. City of Pasadena, 2019 WL 4139257, at *5 (C.D. Cal.…