Bearup v. Cintas Corporation
This text of Bearup v. Cintas Corporation (Bearup v. Cintas Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI THOMAS BEARLUP, JR. et al., : Case No. 1:21-cv-151 Plaintiffs, Judge Matthew W. McFarland
v : CINTAS CORP. NO. 2, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL net This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Andrea
Carter (Doc. 105.). On May 3, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Suggestion of Death (Doc. 92) notifying the Court that Plaintiff Andrea Carter had passed away and that her
successor or representative was not prepared to file a motion for substitution. At this
time, no successor or representative of Plaintiff Carter has filed a motion for substitution, and over 260 days have passed since Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the Suggestion of Death
(Doc. 92.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim
is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(a). The rule further provides that “[i]f the motion [to substitute] is not made within 90
days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent
must be dismissed.” Id. When a party files a suggestion of death and serves it on all other
parties, the 90-day clock begins running. Premoh v. City of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:15-cv-
265, 2016 WL 2858900, at *5 (S.D. Ohio May 13, 2016). If no motion to substitute a party is
filed within 90 days of the suggestion of death, then Rule 25 mandates that the court
dismiss the action. Id. Accordingly, as no motion to substitute has been filed within 90 days since
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the Suggestion of Death (Doc. 92), the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Andrea Carter (Doc. 105.) Plaintiff Andrea
Carter’s claims are DISMISSED for failure to substitute a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 25(a)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wath, Wedd BN JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bearup v. Cintas Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearup-v-cintas-corporation-ohsd-2025.