Underwood v. O-Reilly Auto Parts, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01766
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 TYLER UNDERWOOD, 6 Case No. 2:21-cv-01766-GMN-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 ORDER v. 8 [Docket No. 116] O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et 9 al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to substitute and to amend the complaint. 12 Docket No. 116. Defendants filed responses in opposition and/or joinders thereto. Docket Nos. 13 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 133. The motion 14 is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 15 motion to substitute is GRANTED and the motion for leave to amend is DENIED without 16 prejudice.1 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Tyler Underwood performed automotive and heavy equipment mechanical work 19 from about 2006 to 2020. Compl. at ¶ 7.2 Mr. Underwood alleges that he was exposed to benzene 20 during this time period. See id. In December 2020, Mr. Underwood was diagnosed with Acute 21 Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), as well as related adverse blood and bone marrow effects, cellular 22 abnormalities, anemia, genotoxic effects, and DNA damage. Comp. at ¶ 10. On January 16, 2022, 23 1 It is within a magistrate judge’s authority to allow substitution of a party. See United 24 States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2015 WL 6394526, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 22, 2015); see also Boldrini v. Fed. Nat’l Mort. Ass’n, 2019 WL 5549645, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2019). It is 25 within a magistrate judge’s authority to deny a motion (including a dispositive motion) without prejudice. See, e.g., Lescinsky v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 539 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1125 n.1 (D. Nev. 26 2021). 27 2 The complaint is filed on the docket within the same document as the petition for removal. Docket No. 1 at 10-23; see also Docket No. 7-1 at 10-23. Counsel are reminded moving forward 28 that exhibits must be filed as stand-alone documents. Local Rule IC 2-2(a)(3)(A). 1 Mr. Underwood passed away at the age of 25. Docket No. 116-1. On February 25, 2022, Angela 2 Underwood (Mr. Underwood’s mother) became the personal representative of his estate. Docket 3 No. 116-2. The parties are now before the Court on a motion to substitute filed in the aftermath 4 of Mr. Underwood’s death, as well as a motion to amend. 5 II. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF 6 The Court will first address the request to substitute the plaintiff in light of Mr. 7 Underwood’s death. A sufficient showing has been made for this substitution. 8 A. STANDARDS 9 Substitution of parties upon death is governed by Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. That rule provides: 11 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 12 made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement 13 noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). 16 A substitution decision is committed to the discretion of the trial court. In re Bernal, 207 17 F.d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, Advisory Comm. Notes (1963) (indicating 18 that substitution “will ordinarily be granted” but that the rule provides discretion to account for 19 potential unfairness or prejudice). In exercising that discretion, courts have deduced three 20 requirements from the text of Rule 25(a)(1): (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the motion must 21 seek to substitute a proper party; and (3) the claim must not be extinguished upon the decedent’s 22 death. E.g., F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 2014 WL 2742872, at *1 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014). 23 A substituted party is not a “new” party. Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th Cir. 24 2019). “The substituted party steps into the same position as [the] original party.” Hilao v. Estate 25 of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 26 B. ANALYSIS 27 There is no dispute in this case that the motion to substitute was timely filed or that Mr. 28 Underwood’s claims were not extinguished upon his death. Moreover, the parties are all in 1 agreement that Mr. Underwood’s mother (Angela Underwood) is a proper party. Accordingly, the 2 motion to substitute will be granted with respect to Angela Underwood substituting as the plaintiff 3 in this case. 4 The motion practice does evidence a possible dispute, however, as to whether Mr. 5 Underwood’s siblings are proper parties for substitution purposes. See, e.g., Docket No. 124 at 6 12-13. Although somewhat convoluted, the motion to substitute on its face seeks substitution for 7 only Angela Underwood as Mr. Underwood’s mother. See Docket No. 116 at 2 (“Plaintiff seeks 8 to . . . substitute Angela Underwood as the proper party plaintiff”); see also Docket No. 116-3 9 (proposed amended complaint providing caption with “ANGELA UNDERWOOD, Personal 10 Representative for the Estate of Tyler Underwood”).3 As such, the Court need not opine on 11 whether these siblings could substitute for Mr. Underwood because that relief was not sought. 12 III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 13 There is an important, but often overlooked, provision in the local rules requiring separate 14 documents to be filed for separate requests. Local Rule IC 2-2(b). “This rule is not an exercise of 15 pure formality.” Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132101, at 16 *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2018). Among other underpinnings, the Rule seeks to ensure that distinct 17 matters are presented with sufficient clarity and supporting argument to enable the fashioning of a 18 ruling, particularly when the distinct issues are subject to varying standards. See, e.g., id. at *3. 19 The instant motion practice violates Local Rule IC 2-2(b) by seeking both substitution (by which 20 a proper party steps into the shoes of Mr. Underwood) and leave to amend (by which new parties 21 are added and/or new claims are advanced). In so doing, the briefing conflates issues subject to 22 different standards. 23 24

25 3 The reply seems to indicate that the proposed amended complaint is meant to raise claims on the siblings’ own behalf based on their own injuries. See Docket No. 133 at 2-3. This argument 26 is puzzling given that the proposed amended complaint does not name the siblings as plaintiffs, does not include claims that on their face are brought by the siblings, and does not seek any remedy 27 for the siblings in the prayer for relief. See Docket No. 116-3. The Court need not make a definitive ruling as to any claims by the siblings, however, as the motion to amend is being denied 28 without prejudice for the reasons stated below. ] Moreover, the briefing does not sufficiently address several issues with respect to amendment. The most important consideration in resolving a motion to amend is prejudice to the 3] opposing parties. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The prejudice claimed here is premised on the fact that a deposition was taken of Plaintiff to 5] preserve his testimony and that any new allegations could not be explored in deposition testimony 6| of Plaintiff given his death. See, e.g., Docket No. 124 at 9-10; Docket No. 130 at 4. The briefing 7| does not include citation to any legal authority addressing similar circumstances. 8 With respect to futility, the briefing does not address why that is an issue that should be 9} resolved through a motion for leave to amend. See, e.g., Steward vy. CMRE Fin’ Servs., Inc., 2015 10] WL 6123202, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 16, 2015) (Koppe, J.) (“Ordinarily, courts will defer 11] consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amendment until after leave to amend is granted and the amended pleading 1s filed”). With respect to undue delay, the briefing does not address the case law from this District that there is a “strong presumption” against finding undue delay when amendment is sought during the discovery period. See, e.g., Hologram USA, Inc. v. 15] Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 316900, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2015) (Navarro, J.). CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the motion to substitute is GRANTED and the motion for 18] leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: April 20, 2022 UA. Nancy J. Koppé, 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28