(PC) Madrid v. Anglea

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00894
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ALEJANDRO MADRID, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0894 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ) TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 13 v. ) COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE ) 14 H. ANGELA, et al., ) (Doc. 45) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 On November 28, 2023, Defendants filed a “Notice of Suggestion of Death” of Alejandro 18 Madrid, reporting they were informed Plaintiff was deceased. (Doc. 43 at 2.) At that time, Defendants 19 also identified Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest, his wife Renee Madrid. (Id. at 2-4.) Defendants served 20 Ms. Madrid with the “Notice of Suggestion of Death of Plaintiff” and “Identification of Successor-in- 21 Interest” on December 13, 2023, and filed proof of service. (Doc. 44 at 1.) Defendants now move to 22 dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 45.) 23 Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may continue with 24 a decedent’s successor or representative. However, a decedent’s successor or representative file a 25 motion for substitution to proceed. Importantly, “[i]f the motion is not made within 90 days after 26 service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. 27 R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Thus, there are two requirements under Rule 25(a) for the 90-day period to be 28 triggered: a formal notice of suggestion of death must be (1) filed on the record and (2) served upon 1 || other parties and the nonparty successor or representative. Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th 2 || Cir. 1994). Ifthe requirements of Rule 25(a)(1) are met, “[t]he substituted party steps into the same 3 || position as [the] original party.” Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 4 As noted above, Defendants filed a “Notice of Suggestion of Death of Plaintiff’ with the Cou: 5 November 28, 2023. (Doc. 43.) The 90-day period began to run when Plaintiffs successor-in- 6 || interest received service on December 13, 2023. See Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233; see also Silas v. Sheriff 7 || of Broward Cnty., 55 F.4th 872, 876 (11th Cir. 2022) (“nonparties must be notified to begin the 90-dé 8 || period provided by Rule 25(a)(1)”); Summerfield v. Fackrell, 2012 WL 113281, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9 |) 11, 2012) (before the 90-day period begins to run, the suggestion of death must be filed on the record 10 || and served to the other parties); see also Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, 11 || any motion to substitute was due no later than March 12, 2024. Because a motion was not filed, 12 || Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Based upon the foregoing, the 13 || Court ORDERS: 14 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 45) is GRANTED. 15 2. The action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure. 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _March 25, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28