Order at 4. The Bankruptcy Court therefore hypothesized (in favor of the party bearing the burden to establish excusable neglect)18 that had the Trustee’s paralegal                                                              17 The Bin Laden court rejected the very interpretation of the law urged by the Trustee and adopted by the Bankruptcy Court, holding that “plaintiffs [do not] get an indefinite postponement of dismissal ending only when they identify the substituted party. That would render the deadline set by Rule 25(a) nugatory.” Id. at 24. That is exactly what the Bankruptcy Court did here, by converting hypothetical (and, in truth, imaginary) difficulty in identifying Ms. Currier into an irrefutable excuse for perpetual inaction.

Dated: August 12, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 802-3000 Attorney for Mformation Software Technologies LLC Case3:08-cv-04990-EMC Document1157 Filed08/12/13 Page18 of 19 1 2 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 MST’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE OR JOIN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 25(C) CASE NO.

Accordingly, at best, the court’s holding in Lizarazo supports Brookdale’s argument that the deadline to file the Motion to Substitute was December 30, 2018, the expiration of the stay entered by the Arbitrator. This is especially true given that Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Stay was filed in response to the statement of death on the record and for the express purpose to “permit the filing of a Rule 25 Motion for Substitution.”

For the foregoing reasons, NPC requests that the Court dismiss plaintiff James McGuinness’s claims with prejudice. Date: January 15, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, Michael J. Thomas Fla. Bar No. 897760 William H. Hughes II Fla. Bar No. 628263 PENNINGTON, MOORE, WILKINSON, BELL, & DUNBAR PA 215 S Monroe St – 2nd Floor PO Box 10095 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2095 (850) 222-3533 /s/ Katharine R. Latimer Katharine R. Latimer Appearing Pro Hac Vice Heather A. Pigman Fla. Bar No. 119938 HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I St. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-5800 Attorneys for Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Case 6:12-cv-00141-ACC-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/15/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID 496 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this 15th day of January 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Novartis Pharmaceutical’s Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Rule 25 with Supporting Memorandum of Law has been filed via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and has been served on the following: John A. Girardi GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 977-0211 Steven C. Marks Ramon A. Rasco Podhurst Orseck, PA Suite 800 25 W Flagler St Miami, FL 33130 (305) 358-2800 Attorneys for Plaintiff James McGuinness /s/ Katharine R. Latimer Katharine R. Latimer Appearing Pro Hac Vice Heather A. Pigman Fla. Bar No. 119938 HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I St. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-5800 Attorneys for Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Case 6:12-cv-00141-ACC-TBS Document 63 Filed 01/15/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID 497

This Court has good cause to extend their time in light of Plaintiffs’ continued and diligent efforts to locate proper substitute parties and the lack of prejudice to Defendants. Courts have been liberal in extending the time in which to move for substitution under Rule 25(a)(1) where, as here, there have been delays ascertaining the identity of a proper substitute. See, e.g., Kernisant, 225 F.R.D. at 432.

Case No: 1:16-cv-02495-CKK [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs The Groundfish Forum, United Catcher Boats, B & N Fisheries Company, and Katie Ann LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively “Federal Defendants”) (1) exceeded their authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), U.S. Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) Wilbur L. Ross is automatically substituted for Penny Pritzker, former Secretary. Case 1:16-cv-02495-CKK Document 35-6 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 2 2 56080774 Act (“MSA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1884, by enacting Amendment 113 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fishery and its implementing regulations (“Amendment 113”), as set forth in the final rule promulgated on November 23, 2016 by Federal Defendants entitled Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Amendment 113, 81 Fed. Reg.

Case: 1:15-cv-00989-CAB Doc #: 21 Filed: 07/23/15 6 of 8. PageID #: 250 7 CONCLUSION For these reasons, the undersigned counsel respectfully request that the Court issue an order granting the following relief: (1) appointing Defendant Frank Stoiker’s adult daughter, Karen Lamendola, to act as guardian ad litem for Mr. Stoiker in this civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2); and (2) substituting Karen Lamendola in her capacity as the guardian ad litem for Defendant Frank Stoiker to act as the named Defendant in place of Defendant Frank Stoiker pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(b). A Proposed Order is hereby submitted for the Court’s reference.

25-53 Moore’s § 25.35[1] (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c)). “Thus, the court must make a determination, based on Case3:08-cv-04990-EMC Document1145 Filed07/29/13 Page6 of 12 1 2 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 MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AS PLAINTIFF OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO JOIN AS CO-PLAINTIFF 6 CASE NO.

Thus, Nationstar would not have been a proper substitute as a successor in interest to Aurora’s claims in this lawsuit at any time during the course of this litigation. American Credit Co. v. Bradford, 414 So. 2d 119, 121 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (citing 7A Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1958, p. 663) (“The most significant feature of Rule 25(c) is that it does not require that anything be done after an interest has been transferred. The action may be continued by or against the original party, and the judgment will be binding on his successor in interest even though he is not named.”). Case 2:16-cv-00078-TMP Document 11 Filed 01/22/16 Page 9 of 29 1421170.1 10 at 1117) where those claims arose out of the same causes of action against the same party.

Additionally, the purpose of the 1963 amendment to Rule 25 was “to liberalize the rule and to allow flexibility in substitution of parties.” Sinito v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 516 (D.C. Cir. 1999); accord Tatterson v. Koppers Co., Inc., 104 F.R.D. 19, 20 (W.D. Pa. 1984) (“[T]he history of Rule 25(a) and Rule 6(b) makes it clear that the 90 day time period was not intended to act as a bar to Case 1:96-cv-00247-SJM Document 61 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 6 of 8 7 otherwise meritorious actions, and extensions of the period may be liberally granted.”).