Adams v. Tegels

W.D. Wisconsin

Adams v. Tegels

DecidedFebruary 22, 2023

Docket3:18-cv-00971

StatusUnknown

This text of Adams v. Tegels (Adams v. Tegels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Tegels, (W.D. Wis. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PAUL ALLEN ADAMS,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER LIZZIE TEGELS, TAMMY MAASSEN, DEBRA TIDQUIST, PAULINE HULSTEIN, NURSE 18-cv-971-jdp ANTHONY HENTZ, LIN KIMPEL, and KRISTINE PRALLE,

Defendants.

Attorney Briane Pagel notified the court that former plaintiff Paul Allen Adams had died. Dkt. 129. In response to my order, defendants filed a statement of death. Dkt. 133. Pagel and defendants investigated whether Adams had a successor or representative and determined that he had no representative and that his daughter, Sasha Adams, was his only potential successor. See Dkt. 135. Sasha Adams was served with the statement of death on November 16, 2022. Dkt. 135-1. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), noting that neither Sasha Adams nor anyone else moved for substitution within 90 days after her service with the statement of death. Dkt. 136. Because Sasha Adams failed to move for substitution within 90 days after she was served with the statement of death, I will dismiss the case with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1); see also Russell v. City of Milwaukee, 338 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 25(a)). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 136, is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 74, is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Entered February 22, 2023. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PAUL ALLEN ADAMS,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER LIZZIE TEGELS, TAMMY MAASSEN, DEBRA TIDQUIST, PAULINE HULSTEIN, NURSE 18-cv-971-jdp ANTHONY HENTZ, LIN KIMPEL, and KRISTINE PRALLE,

Defendants.

Attorney Briane Pagel notified the court that former plaintiff Paul Allen Adams had died. Dkt. 129. In response to my order, defendants filed a statement of death. Dkt. 133. Pagel and defendants investigated whether Adams had a successor or representative and determined that he had no representative and that his daughter, Sasha Adams, was his only potential successor. See Dkt. 135. Sasha Adams was served with the statement of death on November 16, 2022. Dkt. 135-1. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), noting that neither Sasha Adams nor anyone else moved for substitution within 90 days after her service with the statement of death. Dkt. 136. Because Sasha Adams failed to move for substitution within 90 days after she was served with the statement of death, I will dismiss the case with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1); see also Russell v. City of Milwaukee, 338 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 25(a)). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 136, is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 74, is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Entered February 22, 2023. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Adams v. Tegels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-tegels-wiwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack