(PC) Allen v. Kramer

E.D. California

(PC) Allen v. Kramer

DecidedAugust 11, 2020

Docket1:15-cv-01609

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(PC) Allen v. Kramer, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

41.407 UV □□□ LYALL VL bMVVULITICIIL VO PHM VOrLsicy Payee +vr1re 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ALLEN, Case No. 1:15-cv-01609-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO v. RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 SUBSTITUTE DECEASED DEFENDANT STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., 14 ECE No. 97 Defendants. 15 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 16 □□ Plaintiff moves to substitute a representative for the deceased defendant Cliff Allenby. 17 ECF No. 97. Plaintiff's motion is unopposed. However, it does not name the person to be 18 substituted or indicate whether it has been served on that individual. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a){3) 19 (requiring service of a motion to substitute). The burden of identifying defendant Cliff Allenby’s 20 personal representative falls upon defendants. See Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th 21 Cir. 2019). Thus, defendants are ordered to identify that individual within 30 days. After that 22 individual has been identified, plaintiff must serve his motion upon him or her, and the court will 23 allow an opportunity for that nonparty to respond to plaintiff's motion. 24 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 57 | Dated: August 11, 2020 \ prssanp Rae — UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28

1 2 No. 204. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

41.407 UV □□□ LYALL VL bMVVULITICIIL VO PHM VOrLsicy Payee +vr1re 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ALLEN, Case No. 1:15-cv-01609-DAD-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO v. RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 SUBSTITUTE DECEASED DEFENDANT STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., 14 ECE No. 97 Defendants. 15 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS 16 □□ Plaintiff moves to substitute a representative for the deceased defendant Cliff Allenby. 17 ECF No. 97. Plaintiff's motion is unopposed. However, it does not name the person to be 18 substituted or indicate whether it has been served on that individual. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a){3) 19 (requiring service of a motion to substitute). The burden of identifying defendant Cliff Allenby’s 20 personal representative falls upon defendants. See Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th 21 Cir. 2019). Thus, defendants are ordered to identify that individual within 30 days. After that 22 individual has been identified, plaintiff must serve his motion upon him or her, and the court will 23 allow an opportunity for that nonparty to respond to plaintiff's motion. 24 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 57 | Dated: August 11, 2020 \ prssanp Rae — UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28

1 2 No. 204. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Allen v. Kramer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-allen-v-kramer-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack