Phoebe Copas v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

W.D. Texas

Phoebe Copas v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided August 24, 2026·No. 3:24-cv-00205·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

PHOEBE COPAS, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § EP-24-CV-00205-DCG UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. § § Defendant. § ORDER

U.S. Magistrate Judge Miguel Torres has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) advising the Court to order Defendant to prove who Plaintiff’s representatives or successors are and to properly serve them.1 The Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. IN PART and MODIFIES it IN PART. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Phoebe Copas died on March 25, 2025.2 Thus, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) contemplates,3 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. served six of Plaintiff’s relatives with a statement noting Plaintiff’s death.4 Over 90 days have passed since Defendant

1 See R. & R., ECF No. 26, at 8. 2 Death Certificate, ECF No. 21-1, at 1. 3 See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a)(3) (providing that “[a] statement noting death must be served” “on nonparties”); FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a)(1) (“If 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.”). 4 See Def.’s Compliance, ECF No. 20, at 2. did so,5 yet no one has filed a procedurally compliant6 Motion to Substitute themselves as Plaintiff’s successor or representative in this case.7 This case is thus potentially subject to dismissal under Rule 25(a).8 The Court referred the case to Judge Torres for an R. & R. analyzing: (1) whether Defendant needed to serve the statement noting death on anyone else and (2) whether Defendant

properly served Copas’s six relatives.9 The R. & R. explained that Rule 25(a) requires service on a decedent’s estate’s personal representative and therefore advised the Court to order Defendant to prove it has done so.10 Judge Torres also concluded that Defendant’s service on Copas’s six family members complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.11 Judge Torres further recommended dismissing the case if and when Defendant proves that it validly served Plaintiff’s

5 See id. (representing that Defendant served the last of Plaintiff’s relatives on June 13, 2025). 6 Plaintiff’s parents filed two procedurally non-compliant Motions to Substitute, which the Court denied without prejudice for failure to satisfy the applicable legal prerequisites for substitution. See generally Order Construing Filing Mot. Substitute & Denying Mot. Substitute Without Prejudice, ECF No. 23; Order Denying Mot. Without Prejudice, ECF No. 24. Plaintiff’s parents did not thereafter file a procedurally compliant Motion to Substitute. 7 See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a)(1) (“If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.”). 8 See id. (“If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.”). 9 Referral Order, ECF No. 25, at 2. 10 R. & R. at 5-8. 11 Id. at 7-8. personal representative.12 Finally, the R. & R. found that Plaintiff’s death did not extinguish her claims,13 an issue the Court previously left open.14 Judge Torres issued the R. & R. on July 30, 2026.15 The parties16 thus had until August 13, 2026 to object to the R. & R.17 The Defendant did not object to the R. & R. by the deadline. II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review When a Magistrate Judge submits an R. & R. for the Court’s consideration, the District Judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge.”18 Where—as here—no party has objected to the R. & R. by the

12 Id. at 8. 13 R. & R. at 4-5. 14 Order Denying Mot. Substitute Without Prejudice, ECF No. 23, at 8. 15 See R. & R. at 8. 16 Objections to an R. & R. can be made by “any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). Until the court orders substitution of the proper party after a party dies, nobody else has taken the decedent’s place as a “party.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a)(1). Copas has not yet been replaced as a party; that is the very issue before the Court. Accordingly, the only party who could object to the R. & R. at this stage is Defendant. That’s not unfair because the R. & R. accrues to the potential substituted party’s benefit by discerning their identity. In any event, there is no way to determine who is entitled to notice of the R. & R. without first adopting the R. & R.’s recommendation to find out who the personal representative is. See also High Farms, LLC v. King, No. 16-CV-736 (NGG) (PK), 2021 WL 1137995, at *1 & n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2021) (nonparty who sought to intervene but had not yet been added as a party could not object to R. & R. regarding summary judgment). 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to [an R. & R.] . . .”). 18 Id. applicable deadline,19 the Court’s review is limited to assessing whether the R. & R. is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.20 B. The Court Accepts the R. & R.

The Court has reviewed the R. & R. and finds no clear error. The R. & R. correctly describes Fifth Circuit precedent requiring service on the personal representative under Rule 25 after a suggestion of a party’s death.21 The opposing party must serve the decedent’s personal representative or successor according to Rule 4.22 Texas law may require Defendant to serve Plaintiff’s “heirs” as well,23 so it is not clear error to require the Defendant to serve heirs too.24 However, if Defendant’s investigation reveals that no probate proceeding has been initiated or there is no personal representative (or equivalent), further briefing would be necessary. In particular, the Court may need to determine whether Copas’s relatives have “relinquish[ed] their right” to represent the estate in pursuing its legal claims by failing to initiate

19 See supra notes 16-17 and accompanying text. 20 See, e.g., Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (“Where no party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s determination, but need only review it to decide whether the Report and Recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). 21 R. & R. at 5-7 (discussing Sampson v. ASC Indus., 780 F.3d 679, 681-83 (5th Cir. 2015)). 22 Id. at 5-6. 23 Id. at 5, 8 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.021(a)-(b)). But see id. at 6 (noting that service on relatives who do not represent the estate may not be required and citing Silas v. Sheriff of Broward Cnty., Fla., 55 F.4th 872, 876 (11th Cir. 2022)). 24 See R. & R. at 8. probate.25 The Court therefore modifies the R. & R. in part to require Defendant to brief that issue should it become necessary. Finally, the Court discerns no clear error in the R. & R.’s finding that Defendant properly served Copas’s six relatives named in the R. & R.26 nor in its conclusion that Plaintiff’s death didn’t extinguish her claim.27

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