Arch Bay Holdings, LLC - Series 2009C v. Combs et al
ORDER granting 23 Motion to Substitute Party. Domus Holdings, LLC substituted as plaintiff. Arch Bay Holdings, LLC - Series 2009C terminated. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 6/19/2013. Copy mailed to defendants at the address set out in the order. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ARCH BAY HOLDINGS, LLC SERIES 2009C,
STEPHEN I. COMBS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION 13-0009-WS-M
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and
Change Case Style (doc. 23). As grounds for the Motion, movant states that Domus Holdings,
LLC (a Louisiana limited liability company whose sole member, David F. Caballero, is a Florida
citizen) acquired the subject mortgage on or about June 7, 2013 pursuant to an assignment
executed by plaintiff, Arch Bay Holdings, LLC – Series 2009C, and recorded in the Baldwin
County Probate Office. As a result of this assignment, Domus maintains, it is now the real party
in interest and the proper plaintiff. On that basis, Domus requests that it be substituted as the
named party plaintiff in this action henceforth.1
Although movant does not identify any authority on which its Motion to Substitute is
predicated, the applicable rule specifies that “[i]f an interest is transferred, the action may be
continued by or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be
substituted in the action or joined with the original party.” Rule 25(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see
generally Andrews v. Lakeshore Rehabilitation Hosp., 140 F.3d 1405, 1407 (11th Cir. 1998)
(recognizing that Rule 25(c) “allows substitution of parties when a transfer in interest has
By all appearances, such transfer will not involve any change in plaintiff’s
counsel. The same firm that has represented Arch Bay since the inception of this litigation filed
the Motion to Substitute, purporting to act on behalf of Domus. In light of this continuity of
representation, it is reasonable to infer that Arch Bay has no objection to the proposed
substitution, even though the Motion is silent on that point.
occurred … during the pendency of litigation”). “The decision whether to allow substitution is
discretionary.” National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co.,
748 F.2d 602, 610 (11th Cir. 1984).
Under the circumstances presented here, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of
allowing the substitution under Rule 25(c). Movant has filed a copy of the Assignment of
Mortgage reflecting that Arch Bay assigned without recourse its entire interest in the Combs’
mortgage to Domus, and that such Assignment was duly recorded on June 7, 2013. (Doc. 23,
Exh. A.) By all appearances, Domus is now the real party in interest, so the interests of clarity
and judicial economy favor allowing the substitution, particularly where such substitution will
not upset federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Moreover, the Court perceives
no discernable risk of prejudice accruing to defendants by virtue of the proposed substitution.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff and Change Case
Style (doc. 23) is granted pursuant to Rule 25(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. The Clerk of Court is directed to
substitute Domus Holdings, LLC as the sole named party plaintiff herein, and to terminate
Arch Bay Holdings, LLC – Series 2009C as a party plaintiff. All future filings in this matter by
any litigant should reflect that the proper style of the case is Domus Holdings, LLC v. Stephen I.
Combs and Alisa F. Piccirillo Combs.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to defendants at the address
where they were recently served with process, to-wit: 920 Cannock Street, Grovetown, GA
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2013.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?