Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger, et al.

Filing 78

ORDER granting 76 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/28/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 76.)

HEFFLEFINGER, et al.,

15

1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA-PC

Defendants.

16
17

Luis Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the complaint

18

commencing this action on February 14, 2013, as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

19

1983. (ECF No. 1.) The case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed

20

on July 14, 2014, on the following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation in violation of the First

21

Amendment against defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger, Badger, McAllister, Tredwell,

22

Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy, and Huerta; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment

23

against defendant Lovofoy for inadequate medical care; and (3) violation of the Eighth

24

Amendment against defendants Hefflefinger and Lovofoy based on conditions of confinement.

25

(ECF No. 25.)

26

I.

BACKGROUND

27

A notice of Plaintiff’s death was placed on the court’s record by his wife, Caroline

28

Grenot, on April 25, 2016, in which Ms. Grenot requested information regarding continuation
1

1

of the suit on behalf of Plaintiff’s estate. (ECF No. 67.) On May 4, 2016, Defendants filed a

2

formal notice of Plaintiff’s death with the court. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants produced evidence

3

that Plaintiff’s daughter, Amelia Garcia, was served by personal delivery on May 7, 2016.

4

(ECF No. 69.) However, Defendants’ evidence established that while personal delivery of the

5

notice was attempted upon Plaintiff’s wife, Caroline Grenot, and Plaintiff’s brother, David

6

Rodriguez, neither of them were located at their respective addresses, and therefore, neither of

7

them were served with notice.

8

Defendants did not indicate that any other attempts were made to serve either Ms. Grenot or

9

Mr. Rodriguez, both of whom Defendants represented to be non-party successors or

10

(ECF No. 69.)

Moreover, the documents submitted by

representatives, by means other than personal delivery.

11

On November 3, 2016, the Court ordered Defendants to supplement their previously

12

filed notice with evidence of proper service upon both Caroline Grenot and David Rodriguez

13

within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 72.) On November 7, 2016, Defendants filed a proof of

14

service on Plaintiff’s widow, C. Grenot, showing that she was personally served with the

15

Notice of Death on September 14, 2016. (ECF No. 73.)

16

On November 22, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for an order permitting service of the

17

Notice of Death of Plaintiff upon David Rodriguez by publication. (ECF No. 74.) On January

18

18, 2017, the court issued an order granting Defendants’ motion, authorizing Defendants to

19

serve D. Rodriguez with the Notice of Death of Plaintiff by publication in the Los Angeles

20

Times, with publication to be made once a week for four weeks. (ECF No. 75.)

21

On January 31, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

22

January 18, 2017, order.1 (ECF No. 76, 77.) No opposition has been filed. The motion for

23

reconsideration is now before the court. (Local Rule 230(l).

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice on January 31, 2017. (ECF No. 77.) The
Court does not require evidence of the documents submitted for judicial notice to resolve the motion for
reconsideration. Therefore, Defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied as moot.
2

1

II.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

2

Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake,

3

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with

4

reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under

5

Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

6

misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies

7

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to

8

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .”

9

exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and

10

citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond

11

his control . . . .”

12

reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(k) requires Plaintiff to show “what new or different

13

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

14

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In seeking

15

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

16

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

17

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

18

Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations

19

marks and citations omitted, and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a

20

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation . . . ” of that which was already

21

considered by the Court in rendering its decision,” U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

22

F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a

23

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare

24

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), affirmed in part and

25

reversed in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Defendants’ Motion

26

A.

27

Defendants move for reconsideration of the court’s order issued on January 18, 2017, in

28

which the court authorized Defendants to serve notice of Plaintiff’s death upon Plaintiff’s
3

1

brother, D. Rodriguez, by publication, on the grounds that all necessary parties have already

2

been personally served and the costs of publication would be wasteful and unnecessary under

3

the circumstances. In the alternative, Defendants request an order approving publication of a

4

shortened version of the notice of death, to decrease Defendants’ cost of compliance with the

5

order.

6

Defendants submit the following background facts:

7

On or about April 14, 2016, Defendants received notice that Plaintiff

8

died during the pendency of this litigation. (ECF No. 67.) After learning the

9

names

and

possible

locations

of

Plaintiff’s

possible

successors

or

10

representatives, Defendants filed a Notice of Death of Plaintiff with the Court on

11

May 4, 2016. (ECF No. 66.) That same day, Defendants sent out the Notice of

12

Death to be served. However, due to an oversight, counsel for Defendants did

13

not immediately file the proof of service for A. Garcia, and the declarations of

14

non-service for C. Grenot and D. Rodriguez, with the Court after serving the

15

notice. (ECF No. 69.)

16

On August 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order requiring

17

Defendants to supplement their Notice of Death of Plaintiff with proofs of

18

service.

19

Defendants filed with the Court a proof of service for Plaintiff’s daughter, A.

20

Garcia, showing that she was served personally on May 7, 2016. (ECF No. 69

21

at 6.) Defendants also filed with the Court Declarations of Non-Service for

22

Plaintiff’s wife, C. Grenot, and his brother, D. Rodriguez. (ECF No. 69 at 4-5.)

23

To date, A. Garcia has not filed a motion for substitution, or any other document

24

with the Court, evidencing her intention to substitute into this case.

(ECF No. 68.)

On August 16, 2016, in response to that Order,

25

The day after Defendants filed the proof of service for A. Garcia, and

26

declarations of non-service for C. Grenot, and D. Rodriguez, the Magistrate

27

Judge issued Findings and Recommendations dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.

28

(ECF No. 70.) On November 3, 2016, the District Judge declined to adopt the
4

1

Findings and Recommendations and ordered Defendants to provide proofs of

2

service for C. Grenot and D. Rodriguez. (ECF No. 72.) The Court also ordered

3

substituted service, one method which was service by publication. (Id.)

4

On November 7, 2016, counsel for Defendants filed a Declaration along

5

with the proof of service for Plaintiff’s wife, C. Grenot, showing that she was

6

personally served with the Notice of Death on September 14, 2016. (ECF No.

7

73.)

8

Plaintiff’s brother, is not a necessary or proper party to this section 1983 action

9

because he is not a successor to Plaintiff’s claims whom Defendants were

10

required to serve. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1); See Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 377.3;

11

Cal. Prob. Code §§ 6401, 6402.

Counsel for Defendants also notified the Court that D. Rodriguez,

12

Defendants notified the Court that they had been unable to locate D.

13

Rodriguez after a diligent search and sending a process server to his last known

14

addresses. (Id.) Defendants were informed through the process server that the

15

address for D. Rodriguez’s last known personal residence was no longer valid

16

because he sold the home more than fifteen years ago. (Id.) Defendants also

17

learned that D. Rodriguez’s last known business address was no longer valid

18

because the business no longer exists. (Id.)

19

However, to comply with the Court’s Order to serve D. Rodriguez,

20

Defendants also moved for an Order authorizing them to serve the Notice of

21

Death of Plaintiff by publication in the Los Angeles Times if the Court so

22

required. (ECF No. 74.)

23

The Magistrate Judge granted Defendants’ motion for service by

24

publication and ordered publication for four weeks, one day per week. (ECF

25

No. 75.)

26

Advertising Representative with the Los Angeles Times for a cost estimate for

27

serving the Notice of Death via publication. (Walker, Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) That same

28

day, the Legal Advertising Representative at the Los Angeles Times provided

On January 19, 2017, counsel for Defendants contacted a Legal

5

1

counsel for Defendants with a sample and an invoice for $8,357.68 including the

2

costs to publish the Notice of Death once a week for four weeks. (Walker, Decl.

3

¶ 3, Ex. 1.) On January 20, 2017, counsel for Defendants contacted the Legal

4

Advertising Representative and requested a price quote on a shortened version

5

of the Notice of Death. (Walker, Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) The price quote for the

6

shortened version of the Notice of Death was $1,836.24 to publish once a week

7

for four weeks. (Id.)

8

Defendants argue that they were not required under Rule 25(a)(1) to serve Plaintiff’s

9

brother, D. Rodriguez, with the Notice of Death, because he is not a successor to Plaintiff’s

10

claims whom Defendants were required to serve. Defendants also argue that under California

11

law, Plaintiff’s wife, not her brother, would be the successor to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

12

Defendants also argue that serving an unnecessary party, D. Rodriguez, by publication

13

would require them to incur significant costs with no benefit to Plaintiff’s potential successors

14

to his claims.

15

B.

16

Defendants have set forth facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to

17

Discussion

reverse its prior decision. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration shall be granted.

18

Defendants have provided evidence that they complied with the requirements of Rule

19

21(a)(1) to (1) formally suggest the death of the party on the record, and (2) serve the

20

suggestion of death on the other parties and nonparty successors or representatives. Fed R. Civ.

21

P. 21(a)(1). Defendants have submitted proof that on September 14, 2016, they personally

22

served Plaintiff’s wife, C. Grenot, with the notice of Plaintiff’s death. (ECF No. 73.)

23

The court concurs that under California law, Plaintiff’s wife is the successor in interest

24

to Plaintiff’s claims in this § 1983 action. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30 (Under California

25

law, Plaintiff’s 1983 claim survives his death and “passes to [his] successor in interest.”); Cal.

26

Prob. Code § 6401 (Under the rule of California’s intestate succession, a surviving spouse

27

receives all community property and one-half of separate property); Cal. Prob. Code § 6402

28

(The remaining part of the estate passes first to decedent’s children. Only if the decedent has
6

1

no surviving children or parents does the estate pass to decedent’s siblings.)

2

Defendants have complied with the requirements of Rule 25(a)(1) to serve the Notice of Death.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration shall be granted.

3
4

Therefore,

III.

CONCLUSION

5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’

6

motion for reconsideration, filed on January 31, 2017, is GRANTED, therefore, Defendants

7

are relieved of the Court’s prior order directing Defendants to serve notice by substituted

8

service upon D. Rodriquez.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 28, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7