From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Cnty. of Mariposa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 22, 2021
Case No. 1:18-cv-01541-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-01541-NONE-SAB

01-22-2021

JEFFREY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADVISING DEFENDANTS OF REQUIREMENT TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUGGESTION OF DEATH OF PLAINTIFF IN ORDER TO TRIGGER NINETY-DAY PERIOD (ECF No. 49)

Jeffrey Brown ("Plaintiff") filed this action on November 7, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On January 21, 2021, Defendants filed a statement suggesting the death of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 49.)

Rule 25(a)(1) provides for the dismissal of a party or an action if a motion for substitution is not made within ninety days after service of a statement noting the party's death. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). In order for the ninety-day period for substitution to be triggered, a party must formally suggest the death of the party upon the record, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1), and must serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased with a suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of the motion to substitute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3). Thus, a party may be served with the suggestion of death by service on his or her attorney, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), while non-party successors or representatives of the deceased party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner provided by Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3); Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 232-34 (9th Cir. 1994). Rule 25 requires dismissal, absent a motion for substitution within the ninety-day period, only if the statement of death was properly served. Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 866-67 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating Barlow is "understood as interpreting the 90-day rule judiciously: where a party files a suggestion of death, it must do so in a manner that puts all interested parties and nonparties on notice of their claims in order to trigger the 90-day window.").

While Plaintiff's attorney has been served the suggestion of death, Defendants have not filed a proof of service for the non-party successors or representatives of Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendants are HEREBY NOTIFIED they must file proof that the non-party successors or representatives of Plaintiff have been served with the suggestion of death in order to trigger the time period described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 22 , 2021

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. Cnty. of Mariposa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 22, 2021
Case No. 1:18-cv-01541-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Brown v. Cnty. of Mariposa

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 22, 2021

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-01541-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021)