Figueroa v. Centurion of Arizona LLC et al

Filing 129

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Substitute Jessie Arrandia for Plaintiff Gabriel Figueroa (Doc. 125 ) is granted. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/31/21. (MYE)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10
11

Gabriel A Figueroa,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. CV-20-00064-TUC-RM
ORDER

v.
Centurion of Arizona LLC, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Substitute Jessie

18

Arrandia for Plaintiff Gabriel Figueroa. (Doc. 125.) Defendant Shinn filed a response

19

(Doc. 126), in which Defendants Corizon and Bell joined (Doc. 127), and to which

20

Plaintiff replied (Doc. 128).

21

I.

22

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with

23

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging delays and deficiencies in medical care, failure to

24

accommodate, and retaliation. (Doc. 7.) Upon screening of the original Complaint, the

25

Court found that Plaintiff had stated Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants

26

Corizon, Bell, Consolacion, Centurion, Riley, and Shinn in his official capacity only, a

27

First Amendment claim against Defendants Consolacion and Riley, and an ADA claim

28

against Defendant Shinn in his official capacity only. (Doc. 7 at 9.) Thereafter, the Court

Background

1

granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to add an Eighth Amendment claim

2

against Defendant Switzer. (Doc. 32.) All Defendants answered. (Docs. 34, 35, 45, 75,

3

98.) In December 2020, Plaintiff passed away from COVID-19 and the Court stayed this

4

action in order to allow Plaintiff’s attorney time to seek the appointment of Jessica

5

Arrandia as Plaintiff’s personal representative. (Doc. 124.)

6

II.

7

Plaintiff, through his attorney, seeks to substitute Jessica Arrandia as the Plaintiff

8

in this action. (Doc. 125.) Ms. Arandia has been appointed as the personal representative

9

for Mr. Figueroa’s estate, and Plaintiff asserts that his § 1983 and ADA claims are not

10

extinguished by his death. (Id.; see also Doc. 128) In response, Defendants argue that Ms.

11

Arrandia has not demonstrated standing to pursue the claims in this action and that Mr.

12

Figueroa’s claims did not survive his death. (Docs. 126, 127.) In reply, Plaintiff argues

13

that Ms. Arrandia’s appointment as the personal representative of Mr. Figueroa’s estate—

14

of which this action is the only asset—qualifies her to represent the estate according to

15

her duties in that role. (Doc. 128.)

Motion to Substitute

16

III.

17

Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f a party

18

dies and the claim is not extinguished,” a motion for substitution may be filed by the

19

decedent’s successor or representative, and “the court may order substitution of the

20

proper party.”

Applicable Law

21

Constitutional standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Jack’s Canoes &

22

Kayaks, LLC v. Nat’l Park Serv., 933 F. Supp. 2d 58, 68 (D.D.C. 2013). However, a party

23

seeking to substitute for a plaintiff following the plaintiff’s death need not demonstrate

24

personal standing. A substitute is “not litigating on his or her own behalf and need not

25

have standing in his personal capacity, but rather stands in the shoes of the decedent.”

26

Roe v. City of New York, No. 00 Civ.9062 (RWS), 2003 WL 22715832, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.

27

Nov. 19, 2003). Courts have found that if a deceased plaintiff’s right to bring an action

28

survives his death and passes into his estate, the representative of the estate is a proper

-2-

1

party for substitution. Id.; see also Billups v. West, No. 95 CIV.1146(KMW) HB, 1998

2

WL 341939, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1998) (a representative of the deceased party—“a

3

person lawfully designated by state authority to represent the deceased’s estate”—is a

4

proper party for substitution); Stern v. Gen. Elec. Co., 837 F. Supp. 72, 73 (S.D.N.Y.

5

1993), aff’d, 23 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that representatives were substituted on

6

deceased plaintiff’s behalf).

7

“A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survives the decedent if the claim accrued before

8

the decedent’s death, and if state law authorizes a survival action.” Cavanaugh v. Cty. of

9

San Diego, No.: 3:18-cv-02557-BEN-LL, 2020 WL 6703592, at *43 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

2020). The Arizona survival statute provides:
Every cause of action, except a cause of action for damages
for breach of promise to marry, seduction, libel, slander,
separate maintenance, alimony, loss of consortium or
invasion of the right of privacy, shall survive the death of the
person entitled thereto or liable therefor, and may be asserted
by or against the personal representative of such person,
provided that upon the death of the person injured, damages
for pain and suffering of such injured person shall not be
allowed.
A.R.S. § 14-3110.

18

For ADA claims, “the question of survival ‘is governed by federal common law

19

when, as here, there is no expression of contrary intent’ from Congress. Guenther v.

20

Griffin Constr. Co., Inc., 846 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing Smith v. Dep’t of

21

Human Servs., 876 F.2d 832, 834 (10th Cir. 1989)). The Eighth Circuit has held that an

22

ADA claim may survive a plaintiff’s death because such an outcome would not conflict

23

with the intent of Congress. See id. at 984 (the “abatement of compensatory ADA claims

24

poses ‘a special threat to enforcement’ . . . because the very nature of the ADA makes it

25

more likely the aggrieved party will die before the case is complete given the health issue

26

which brings him or her under the statute’s protection . . . Congress passed the ADA to

27

eradicate discrimination against disabled persons, some of whom may be targeted

28

precisely because of their poor health.”)

-3-

1

IV.

2

Although Defendants assert that Ms. Arrandia lacks standing to bring the claims in

3

this action and therefore cannot be substituted for Mr. Figueroa, they have neither cited

4

nor argued any authority to support this position. The Court finds it appropriate to

5

substitute Ms. Arrandia for Mr. Figueroa in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

6

Procedure 25(a), as she has been appointed the representative of Mr. Figueroa’s estate.

7

Furthermore, the Court finds that Mr. Figueroa’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and ADA claims

8

survive his death pursuant to both Arizona state and federal law.1

9

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Substitute Jessie Arrandia

10
11

Analysis

for Plaintiff Gabriel Figueroa (Doc. 125) is granted.

12

Dated this 31st day of March, 2021.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent Defendants argue mootness, the Court finds such arguments are more
properly raised in a dispositive motion.
-4-