Douglas Cameron Aziz v. Brandon Arth

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 24, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-03959
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS CAMERON AZIZ, ) Case No. CV 21-3959-DSF (JPR) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 ) BRANDON ARTH et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 18 On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a Suggestion of 19 Death, indicating that Plaintiff in this civil-rights action had 20 died on or about January 19. (Rep., ECF No. 91 at 2 & Ex. A.) 21 Two days later the Court ordered Defendants to serve Plaintiff’s 22 successors-in-interest with the Suggestion of Death under Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) and file proof of such service. 24 The Court stayed this action pending any motion to substitute by 25 those successors-in-interest and ordered the Clerk to 26 administratively close the case. 27 On March 19, 2024, Defendants filed notice that they had 28 identified Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest as his wife and 1 1 provided her and Plaintiff’s four adult sons with the Suggestion 2 of Death. (Bakman Decl., ECF No. 94.) After the Court requested 3 clarification on whether the successors had been served in 4 compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as Rule 5 25(a)(3) requires, Defendants filed supplemental declarations on 6 June 19. That filing makes clear that Plaintiff’s wife was 7 served with the Suggestion of Death on March 6, 2024. (Saenz 8 Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 99-2.) 9 Rule 25(a)(1) provides that 10 [i]f a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the 11 court may order substitution of the proper party. A 12 motion for substitution may be made by any party or by 13 the decedent’s successor or representative. If the 14 motion is not made within 90 days after service of a 15 statement noting the death, the action by or against the 16 decedent must be dismissed. 17 Under federal common law, “federal claims typically survive 18 a decedent’s death if they are remedial in nature and not penal.” 19 Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 20 2018). “Claims for non-economic compensatory damages in the form 21 of pain and suffering, emotional distress, and the like, are not 22 punitive and therefore survive[] [plaintiff’s] death.” Id. at 23 1057 (citing Lopez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 5 F. Supp. 3d 24 1106, 1119-20 (N.D. Cal. 2013)). Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks 25 compensatory damages for damages and injury caused by Defendants’ 26 alleged use of “excessive and deadly” force. (See Compl. at 8-9, 27 ECF No. 3.) Such claims are not punitive and survive Plaintiff’s 28 death. 2 1 Rule 25(a) requires “two affirmative steps” to trigger its 2 || 90-day period, after which, if no one has moved to substitute in, 3 Court “must” dismiss the lawsuit. Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 233 (9th Cir. 1994). “First, a party must formally suggest death of the party upon the record.” Id. As noted, 6 |] Defendants did that back in February. “Second, the suggesting 7 | party must serve other parties and nonparty successors or 8 || representatives of the deceased with a suggestion of death.” Id. 9} Defendants accomplished that with service of Plaintiff’s wife on 10 |} March 6, also providing notice to Plaintiff’s four adult sons a 11] few days later. The 90 days has expired, and neither Plaintiff’s 12 successor-in-interest, his wife, nor anyone else has moved to 13 substitute in. 14 Accordingly, the previously imposed stay is VACATED and this 15 | action must be and is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is 16 | directed to terminate the gavels on ECF numbers 53, 66, and 68. 17 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 10,0, 2. feet DATED: __June 24, 2024 SOMA □□□ bh HON. DALE S. FISCHER 20 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 21] Presented by: 22 fom Arenbtatl~ Jean P. Rosenbluth U.S. Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28