Bautista v. Torres

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: CV0471-07
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

•· Fl LED FILED . '' I

SUPERIOR SUPERIOR CQURT COURT l OF GUAM OF GUAM 2 20250CT 'S PH 2025 OCT "'3 *3: u l~ PH3:!JI 3 CLERK UF CLERK OF COURT COURT - . ~ 4 BY: BY: 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 8 ROSARIO S. s. BAUTISTA BAUTISTA and MANUEL C. c. SHOLING, SHOLING, CWIL CIVIL CASE CASE NO. NO. CV0471-07 CV0471-07 9 Plaintiffs, IO 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 vs.

12 12 FRANCISCO TORRES, Individually and as the Previous Special Administrator and Now 13 13 Executor of of the Estate of Jesus U. Tories, Torres, and 14 Peter F. Perez,

15 15 Defendants. Defendants. 16 16

17 DANIEL U. TORRES and BARBARA M. DeMELLO, TRUSTEE 18 UNDER THE ESTABAN TORRES FAMILY 19 TRUST DATED MAY 12, 12, 1995, 1995,

20 20 Plaintiff Plaintiff Interveners, Intervenors, 21 vs. 22 22 ROSARIO S. s. BAUTISTA BAUTISTA and 23 MANUEL C. c. SHOLING, SHOLING, 24 24 Defendants 25 and

26 26 GLORIA C. c. SHOLING, SHOLING, Z7 27 Third Party Defendant. 28 28

Eautisla Bautista v. Tories v. Torres Case No. CV0471 CV0471-07 Decision Decision and and Order Order

Page Page I off of? 1 INTRODUCTION 2 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon came before Vernon P. P. Perez on June June 6, 6, 2025, 2025, for for hearing on

3 3 Successor Plaintiff Catherine Successor Plaintiff CatherineSholing's Sholing's("Successor ("SuccessorPlaintiff') Plaintiff')Joinder Joiner Motion. Motion. Present Present were were 4 Attorney Watson Wayson Wong Wong on behalf of of Successor Plaintiff and Attorney Successor Plaintiff Attorney Mitchell Mitchell F. F. Thompson on 5 behalf of ofDefendant Defendant Peter Peter F. F. Perez Perez ("Defendant Perez"). Perez"). Having Having reviewed reviewed the the pleadings, pleadings, the the 6 arguments presented, presented, and andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow now issues issuesthe thefollowing following Decision and Order.

7 BACKGROUND 8 This matter arose from matter arose from a retainer agreementsigned retainer agreement signedon on October October 15, 15, 1987 1987 ("1987 ("l987

9 agreement") Ms. Ana agreement") between Ms. Ana Sholing Sholing ("Ms. ("Ms. Sholing") Sholing")and and Attorney Attorney Jesus U. Torres Jesus U. Torres("Attorney ("Attorney

10 10 Torres"), in which Torres"), in Torres would Attorney Tories which Attorney would provide providelegal legalservices servicesto tofamily familymembers members in in exchange exchange 11 11 for ten for percent (10%) ten percent (10%) of ofthe the monthly monthly rental rental earnings from the Pacific Islands the Pacific Islands Club Club Property Property in in 12 of for a period of twenty-five (25) Tumon (25) years. years. Ms. Ms.Sholing Sholingwas wasthe the mother mother of of Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Manuel Manuel 13 13 C. Sholing and Rosario Rosario S. S. Bautista Bautista(collectively, (collectively, "Plaintiffs") "Plaintiffs") and and Third-Party Third-Party Defendant Defendant Gloria 14 C. Sholing. Plaintiffs Plaintiffsallege allegeimproprieties improprietiesininthe thehandling handlingofoftheir theirbusiness business and and financial affairs 15 15 by Attorney Tories Torres and, and, following followinghis hisdeath, death, by byDefendant Perez. 1 Defendant Perez.1 16 This matter has hasan anextensive extensiveprocedural proceduralhistory. history. Most Most relevant relevant to this Decision Decision and and Order 17 thefollowing: is the following:

18 18 On June 4, 2021, June 4, 2021, a Suggestion Suggestion of of Death Death on the the Record under GuamRules under Guam Rulesof of Civil

19 19 Procedure ("GRCP") Rule Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 25(a) 25(a) was was filed filedby byAttorney AttorneyWong, Wong,setting settingforth forth that that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs // 20 Intervention Intervention Defendants Rosario S. Battista Bautista and and Manuel Manuel C. Sholing Sholing died died during during the pendency pendency of

21 this action. action.

22 22 On July 7, 2021, 2021, Jose JoseS.S.Bautista Bautista("Jose") ("Jose")and andCatherine Catherine("Catherine") ("Catherine") B. B. Sholing Sholing filed filed a

23 Motion Motion toto Substitute Substitute Parties Parties as as prospective successors. The prospective successors. The Court Court granted granted the the Motion Motion to

24 24 Substitute astotoCatherine Substitute as Catherinesubstituting substitutingfor forManuel Manuel C. C. Sholing Sholingin in Count Count Eight. Eight. (Dec. (Dec. & & Order at 25 25 15, Jul. Jul. 25, 25, 2022). 2022). The Court denied the Motion Motion to to Substitute Substitute for for Jose Jose substituting for Rosario S. S. 26 26 Bautista Bautista in in Count Count Eight and for both Catherine and Jose Josefor for Counts Counts Ten Ten through throughTwelve, Twelve, finding finding

27 27 11 Attorney Attorney Tories Torrespassed passed away away in in August August 2002, 2002, and and Ana AnaSholing Sholingpassed passed away away in in September September 2005. Battista Bautista v. 28 Tories, 17,r'll. Torres, 2017 Guam Guam 17 7.

Bautista v. v. Torres Tories Case No. No. CV0471-07 CV047l-07 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 2 of of7 l they lacked standingtoto assert lacked standing assertthe claims.Id. theclaims. Id The The Court Court found found that that there there was "nothing in in the the 2 record ... ...suggesting suggestingthat thathe theproposed proposedsuccessors successors are are suing in in their their capacity capacity as as trustees of the

3 3 respective trusts." trusts." (Dec. (Dec. & & Order at at 11, ll, Jul. Jul.25, 25, 2022). 2022). The TheCourt Courtdetermined determinedthat that because because "the 4 beneficiary of beneficiary ofaatrust trust generally generallyisisnot notthe the real real party partyinininterest interestand andmay may not not sue sue in in the the name of the 5 trust," the prospective successors successorshad hadno standing. Id. nostanding. Id

6 On August 10, 2023, 2023, the the Court Court granted granted in in part part Jose Joseand andCatherine's Catherine'sMotion Motion to Reconsider

7 as to to Jose Jose substituting substitutingasasplaintiff plaintiff for for Rosario Rosario S. S. Bautista Bautistain in Count Count Eight. Eight. (Dec. (Dec. & Order at 8,

8s Aug. 10, 2023). 2023). The Court gave Jose the theopportunity opportunity within within forty-five forty-fivedays days ofofthe theissuance issuance of of the

9 Decision Decision and and Order to petition petition for for the the appointment appointment of ofCatherine Catherine as administrator for his mother's

Io 10 ancillary ancillary estate estate on on Guam Guam and have her pursue the the Eighth Eighth Count.

11 11 On September 19, 2023, September 19, 2023,the theCourt Court granted grantedBautista's Bautista'sApplication Application for for Ex Parte Relief,

112 giving giving him him an an extension to file his petition petition for for an an ancillary ancillary probate probate by October 17, 2023. 2023. (Order,

13 13 Sept. 19, 2023). Sept. 19, 14 14 On March 1, 1, 2024, Successor SuccessorPlaintiff Plaintiff filed filed an Appearance Appearance of of Administratrix Catherine Catherine

15 15 B. B. Sholing Sholing advising advising that that "Catherine B. Sholing Sholing was duly appointed appointed the Guam Guam administratrix administratrix of of

16 S. Bautista's] [Jose S. Bautista's] estate topursue estate to pursuehis hismother's mother's claims claims in in the theEighth Eighth Count Count of of the theThird Third Amended

17 Complaint for for this this case" case" and and that that as as "administrator, "administrator, she she enters enters her her appearance appearance in this this case case to 18 IS pursue Rosario Rosario S. S. Bautista's Bautista's claims claimsin in the theEighth EighthCount Countof ofthe theThird Third Amended AmendedComplaint." Complaint." The

19 pleading attached attached aa copy copy of of the the Letters Letters of of Administration Administration tiled filed on onFebruary February 24, 24, 2024 2024 in in Probate Probate 20 20 Case No. No. PR0167-23.

21 On On February 10, 2025, February 10, 2025, Successor SuccessorPlaintiff Plaintifffiled filed the the instant instantJoinder Joiner Motion. Motion. Successor Successor

22 22 Plaintiffmoves Plaintiff the Court moves the Court to to join joinJose Jose as aaplaintiff plaintiff in in this this case for the Tenth case for Tenth to to Twelfth Twelfth Counts of of

23 23 the Third Amended the Third Complaint2 pursuant Amended Complaints to GRCP pursuant to Rule 19. GRCP Rule 19. See generally, Joiner See generally, JoinderMot., Mot.,Feb. Feb. 10, 10, 24 24 2025. Successor Plaintiff argues Successor Plaintiff argues that "Mr. "Mr.Bautista, Bautista,as as the the representative representative of ofthe the RSB Trust, should 25 2 2 The Tenth Count The Count of ofthe the Third Third Amended Amended Complaint Complaintalleges allegesmisrepresentation misrepresentationon on the the part part of of Defendant Defendant Perez as 26 26 to attorney's fees fees the the Sholing Sholing siblings needed needed to to pay to the pay to the Torres Tories Estate. Estate. (Third (Third Am. Comp!. Am. Con ,r,r 161-169, Jul. 10, pl. W 161-169, 10, 27 .27 2009). The 2009). Eleventh Count The Eleventh Count alleges alleges alterative alternative misrepresentation misrepresentation based based on on similar similar facts. facts. Id ,r,i Id.atat'gm 170-177. 170-177. The Twelfth Count Count alleges alleges deceptive deceptive trade trade practices practices on part of on the part of Defendant Defendant Perez Perez based based on on the the indications, indications, 28 misrepresentations, and/or misrepresentations, anrYor concealments coneealments described described in in the the Tenth Tenth and andEleventh Eleventh Counts. Counts. Id. ,r,i 178-185. at W Id at 178-185.

Battista Bautista v. v. Torrey Torres Case No. No. CV0471-07 Decision Decision and Order and Order

Page of77 Page 3 of 1 joined as be joined as plaintiff plaintiffininthis thiscase, case, totopursue pursue Mrs. Mrs.Bautista's Bautista'stheft theftclaims claimsagainst against defendant defendant 2 Perez." Id. atat 2-3. Perez." Id. 2-3. On OnMarch March10, 10,2025, 2025, Defendant Defendant Perez Perez filed filed his his Opposition, Opposition, arguing arguing that that Rule 3 19 has no application in this this case case and and that that Successor SuccessorPlaintiff Plaintiff has has failed failed to to timely timely move to

4 substitute the proper proper parties for for Counts Ten through through Twelve Twelve under Rule 25. See generally, generally, Opp'n,

5 5 Mar. 10, 2025. Mar. 10, DefendantPerez 2025. Defendant Perez sets setsforth forth that that"it "it isisPlaintiffs counsel who inexplicably delayed Plaintiffs counsel

6 the resolution of this matter matter by by failing to to correct correct deficiencies deficiencies identified by the Court over two 7 7 years." Id.atat8.8.On years." Id March31, OnMarch 31,2025, 2025,Successor Successor Plaintiff Plaintifffiled filedher her Reply, Reply, arguing arguing that that the the Court 8 required to join is required joinJose Jose in in this this case case because "he "he has shown that that he he claims claims an an interest interest in in this this action

g 9 and is so situated that that its disposition in in his his absence absence may, as as a practical practical matter matter impair or impede

10 IO his ability his ability to to protect protect that interest." (Reply at interest." (Reply at 2, 2, Mar. Mar. 31, 31, 2025). II On On June 6, 2025, June 6, 2025, the the Court Court heard heard arguments argumentson onthe theJoinder Joiner Motion Motionand and subsequently subsequently 12 placed advisement. 3 placed the matter under advisement.3 13 DISCUSSION 14 The parties parties dispute dispute whether whetherRule Rule 19 19or or Rule Rule 25 25 should should apply apply to to Successor SuccessorPlaintiffs Plaintiffs

15 15 Joinder Motion.Rule Joiner Motion. andRule and Rule1919 Rule2525 address addressdistinct distinctprocedural proceduralissues issues related related to to parties parties in in 16 litigation.44 Rule Rule 19 19 provides provides in inrelevant relevant part part that: that: 17 17 a. a. Persons Personsto tobebe Joined Joined ififFeasible. Feasible. AAperson person who who isis subject subject to service ofofprocess process and whose jointer will not deprive the court of jurisdiction and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subjectover the subject 18 18 matter ofof the the action shall shall be be joined joined as a party party in the the action action if if 19 19 1. 1. ininthe theperson's person'sabsence absencecomplete completerelief reliefcannot cannotbe beaccorded accorded among among those those already parties, parties, or 20 20 2. thetheperson personclaims claimsan aninterest interest relating relating to to the the subject subject of ofthe the action action and and is 21 so situated that thatthethedisposition disposition of the action action inin the person's person's absence may 22 ZN i. 1. as a practical practical matter matterimpair impairor orimpede impedethe theperson's person's ability ability to protect protect that interest or 23 23

24 3 On June June 6, 2025, the Court also also heard arguments on Defendant arguments on Defendant Perez's Perez's Motion Motion for for Summary Summary Judgment. Judgment. That 25 Motion Motionwill willbe beaddressed addressed by by the the Court Court in in aa separate separate Decision and and Order. 4 26 Although AlthoughDefendant DefendantPerez Perez also also argues argues that Rule 17 17 does not apply, see Opp'n at see Opp'n at 4-5, 4-5, Successor Plaintiff appears Successor Plaintiff appears to be to basing her be basing herjoinder jointer motion primarily on motion primarily on Rule Rule 19. 19. See JoinderMot. See Joiner ("basedon Mot.atat9 9("based onthe thefacts facts and and the the provisions provisions 27 ofGRCP ofGRCPRuleRule19(a)(2)(i), 19(a)(2)(i),Mr.Mr.Bautista Bautistashould shouldbe joinedtotopursue bejoined pursuethe the RSB RSB Trust's Trust'sclaims claims against against defendant Perez."), defendant Perez."); Reply at Reply at 2 ("The ("The provisions provisions of of Rule Rule 1919 itself clearly clearly shows thatthis shows that thisCourt Courtshould shouldjoin joinMr. Mr.Bautista."). Battista."). Therefore, Therefore, 28 the Court does find itit necessary does not find address Rule necessary to address Rule 17 17 further further at this time.

Bautisia Bautista v. Torrey Torres Case No. CV0471~07 Case No. CV0471-07 Decision andOrder and Order

Page 4 oof7 Page f ii. 11. leave any any of ofthe the persons persons already already parties parties subject subject to aa substantial substantial 1 ofincurring risk of incurring double, double, multiple, multiple, ororotherwise otherwise inconsistent inconsistent 2 obligations obligations by by reason reason of ofthe the claimed interest. ---- - - - - - - - - ~ -

3 IfIfthe the person person has has not not been so joined, joined, the the court court shall shall order orderthat that the the person person be be made made a 4 party. party. IfIfthe the person person should should join joinasas aa plaintiff plaintiffbut butrefuses refusestotodo doso, so, the the person person may be made a defendant, defendant, or, or, in in aaproper proper case, case,ananinvoluntary involuntaryplaintiff. plaintiff. 5 (Guam R. Civ. P. 19(a)). 6 Rule 25 provides in relevant part: part: 7 7 (a) Death. 8 (l) (I)IfIfaaparty partydies diesand andthetheclaim claimisisnot notthereby thereby extinguished, extinguished, the the court court may 9 order substitution of of the proper parties. The motion for substitution substitution may be 10 made by any party or or by bythethesuccessors successors oror representatives representatives ofofthe the deceased deceased party party and, and, together with with the the notice notice of ofhearing, hearing, shall shall be be sewed served onon the the parties 11 as provided in RuleRule 55 and and upon persons not parties in the manner manner provided provided 12 12 in in Rule Rule 4 for for the the service service ofofaa summons. summons. Unless the the motion motion for for substitution is made not later than 90 days after after death death isis suggested suggested upon the record by 13 13 service service of a statement statement of of the the fact of the the death death as provided herein for the the 14 14 service service of thethe motion, motion, thethe action action shall shall be bedismissed dismissed as as to to the the deceased deceased 15 15 party. party, (2) In In the the event of the death death of of one one or or more more of of the the plaintiffs plaintiffs or of one or 16 more ofofthe the defendants in an action in which the right sought to be enforced 17 17 survives only to the survives only the surviving surviving plaintiffs plaintiffs or or only only against against the the surviving surviving 18 18 defendants, the action action does does not not abate. abate. The The death shall be be suggested upon the record and action shall and the action shall proceed proceed inin favor favor of oror against against the surviving 19 parties. 20 (Guam R. Civ. P. 25(a)). 21 "[B]ecause the Guam Guam Rules Rules of of Civil Procedure generally derived from, although not Procedure are generally 22 22 identical to, the Federal Federal Rules of Civil CivilProcedure Procedure ("FRCP"), ("FRCP"), federal federaldecisions decisions that that construe construe the 23 23 federal counterparts federal to the counterparts to the Guam GuamRules Rulesof of Civil Civil Procedure are persuasive Procedure are persuasiveauthority." authority." Gov 't't of of 24 24 Guam vs. vs. O'Keefe, 2018 0 'Keefe, 20 Guam44,rfl 99((citation I 8 Guam omitted). "Rule citation omitted). "Rule 19 19 provides for the the mandatory mandatory 25 jointer ofofparties joinder parties 'needed 'needed for for aa just just adjudication] adjudication,'commonly commonlyreferred referred to to as as 'necessary' 'necessary' parties." parties." 26 26 Blumberg Blumberg v. v. Gates, Gates, 204 F.R.D. F.R.D. 453,454 453, 454(C.D. (C.D. Cal. Cal.2001). 2001). "Rule "Rule 25(a)(l) 25(a)(l) isis designed designed to prevent 27 27 a situation in in which which aa case case is dismissed because becauseaaparty partynever never learned learned of of the death death of of an an opposing opposing 28 ZN

Battista Bautista v. Torres Tories Case No. No. CV0471 CV0471-07 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 5Sof7 off 1 party. party. Instead, party is given 90 days Instead, the party days from from the time when when itit learns learns from from compliance with with Rule

2 25(a)(l) 25(a)(l)ofofthe thedeath death of an opposing ofan opposing party to take appropriate action." action." In In re re Brand, 545 B.R. 37, 3 43 (Banlcr. (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016) 2016) (citing (citing Unicorn Unicorn Tales Tales v. v. Banerjee, 138 F.3d F.3d 467,470 467, 470(2d (2dCir. Cir.1998)). l998)).

4 In this In this case, case, Catherine and Jose Josefiled filed aa Motion to Substitute Motion to Substitute Parties in July 2021, after the

5 June 4, 2021 June 4, 2021 filing filing of aa Suggestion of Death Suggestion of Death on the Record Record under under GRCP GRCP Rule Rule 25(a). 25(a). Both

6 Catherine and Jose Josesought soughttotosubstitute substitutethe theoriginal originalPlaintiffs Plaintiffs for for all remaining remaining claims claims at at that time 7 (Count Eight, Count Ten, Count Eleven, Eleven, and and Count Count Twelve Twelve of the Third Amended Complaint).

8 See generally, Mot. Substitute, See generally, Substitute, Jul. 7, 2021. Jul. 7, 2021. Although Although they they ultimately ultimately substituted substituted the original 9 plaintiffs plaintiffs in in Count Count Eight Eight of ofthe the Third ThirdAmended Amended Complaint, Complaint, they they were were not not substituted substituted for the the

10 original plaintiffs plaintiffsininCounts CountsTen, Ten, Eleven, Eleven, and and Twelve. Twelve. This Thiswas wasbecause because the the Court Court determined determined

11 they lacked standing to to assert assert the theclaims claimsas asthere therewas was"nothing "nothingininthe therecord record... ... suggesting suggesting that 12 successorsare the proposed successors aresuing suinginintheir theircapacity capacityas astrustees trusteesofofthe therespective respectivetrusts." trusts." (Dec. (Dec. & &

13 13 Order at 11, ll, Jul. Jul. 25, 25, 2022). 2022). Successor Successor Plaintiff PlaintiffCatherine Catherine now moves for for Jose Jose to be joined joined as as a 14 party under under Rule l9(a)(2)(i), 19(a)(2)(i),as as aa "representative "representative of ofthe the RSB RSB Trust" Trust" to to pursue pursue the trust's theft

15 15 claims against Defendant Perez.

I 16 In light In ofthe light of the procedural procedural history history of ofthis this matter, matter, the the Couit Court isis not not convinced convinced that that Rule 19 19 17 17 applies applies at this time instead of Rule 25(a). instead of 25(a). The TheCourt Courtacknowledges acknowledges that that Catherine Catherine was not

18 18 formally substituted as aa plaintiff substituted as plaintiff on on behalf behalf of ofRosario Rosario Bautista Bautista for forJose Jose as as to the the Eighth Count 19 until until she she became an an ancillary ancillary representative representative of of Rosario's Rosario's Estate Estate in early 2024. However, However, itit is is not 20 clear to the Court why Jose Jose could not have timely timely moved moved to to be be substituted substituted in in as as a trustee trustee for for the

21 21 RSB Trust after after the the Court Court determined determined he did not have have standing as a trust standing as trust beneficiary, beneficiary, or or why

22 22 Successor Plaintiff could not have Successor Plaintiff have moved moved for for such such either. either. Successor Plaintiff is Successor Plaintiff is not arguing that 23 Counts Ten to Counts Ten to Twelve of of the the Third Third Amended Amended Complaint Complaint were were extinguished by the original extinguished by

24 Z4 plaintiffs' deaths. 5 As plaintiffs' deaths.5 As Defendant Defendant Perez Perez sets sets forth, "the "the original original plaintiffs plaintiffsasserted asserted counts counts ten 25

5 26 "To "To substitute substitute aa party party after after death death under under Rule Rule 25(a)(1), 25(a)(l), three three requirements requirements must must be satisfied: satisfied: (I) (1) the substitution motion must must be timely, timely, (2) (2) the the pleaded pleaded claims claims must must not have have been been extinguished by death, death, and (3) thethe person being 27 substituted mustbe substituted must beaa'proper 'properparty."' party." Ghazarian Ghazarianv.v. Republic Republic ofa/Turkey, 2021 2021 WL 5934476 5934476 *l *l (C.D. (C.D. Cal. Cal. Nov. 16, 16, 2021) (citation omitted). omitted). IfIfthetherequirements requirementsare aremet, met,"[t]he "[t]hesubstituted substitutedparty partysteps steps into into the the same same position as [the] [the] 28 original party." party." Hilao Hilao v. v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762,766 Estate a/Marcos, 766 (9th (9th Cir. 1996).

Bautisia Bautista v. Torrey Torres Case No. Case No. CV047!-07 CV047 l -07 Decision Decision and Order Order

Page 6 of7 Page 1 through twelve. The Theneed needtotosubstitute substituteparties parties to toassert assert those those same same claims is due due to to the death death of of

2 the original original plaintiffs." (Opp'natat7). plaintiffs." (Opp'n 7). Successor SuccessorPlaintiff Plaintiffpreviously previously moved moved the the Court Court to be be 3 allowed to substitute for the remainder of of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint pursuant 4 to Rule 25(a), see see Mot. Mot. Substitute, Substitute, Jul. Jul. 7, 7, 2021, 2021,which whichwas wasultimately ultimately denied deniedby bythe theCourt. Court. (Dec.

5 5 Order, Jul. & Order, Jul. 25, 25, 2022). Further, Further, Successor Successor Plaintiff Plaintiff has has never never moved moved the theCourt Court for for leave leave for

6 time or additional time or late late filing. filing. See, See, e.g., Guam R. Civ. P. e.g., Guam P. 6(b) ("[T]he court for ("[T]he court forcause cause shown shown may 7 7 any time at any in its time in itsdiscretion" discretion"permit permitaalate latefiling.); filing), see also Zanowick see also Zanowiek v.v.Baxter BaxterHealthcare Healthcare Corp., Corp.,

8 850 F.3d F.3d 1090, 1090, 1094 1094(9th (9thCir. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the 2017). Accordingly, the Court Court finds finds that that Rule Rule 25(a) 25(a) applies applies and 9 Successor Plaintiff has Successor Plaintiff has not not timely timely moved for for substitution. substitution. 10 IO CONCLUSION

11 For For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, the Court reasons, the Court hereby hereby DENIES DENIES Successor SuccessorPlaintiffs Plaintiffs Joinder Joiner

12 Motion.

13 ~ 72f& 14 IT IS SO ORDERED this 1.7 day ofof October, 2025. 15

16 u

17 HONORABQE VERNQ P. PEREZ Judge, Supé1§f0r@oi11*t of Golan 18

/ .4 , 19 . ;/yr

ff, ' 20 20

23 23

25 25

26 26

27 27

Eautista Bautista v. Tories Torres Case No. No. CV0471-07 CV047l-07 Decision Decision and and Order Order

Page Page 77of7 off