(PC) Gracia v. County of Kern et al
Filing
42
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Motion to Join Heirs Pursuant to Rule 19 38 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/27/2025. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN DAYS. (Deputy Clerk CRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CAROLINA GRACIA, individually and as
successor-in-interest to LOUIE
GRIJALVA IV,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING MOTION TO JOIN HEIRS
PURSUANT TO RULE 19
(Doc. 38)
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
16
Case No. 1:23-cv-1104-JLT-BAM
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
This case arises out of the death of Louie Grijalva, IV (“Decedent’), while a convicted
20
prisoner serving his sentence at the Kern County Jail—Lerdo Pretrial Facility, in Bakersfield,
21
California. Plaintiff Carolina Gracia brings this action in both her individual capacity and as
22
successor-in-interest to the Decedent. The operative First Amended Complaint asserts claims
23
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law, including wrongful death under California Code
24
of Civil Procedure § 377.60, against defendants County of Kern (“Defendant Kern”), David
25
Navarro, and Does 1 through 10. (Doc. 10.)
26
Defendant Kern now moves to require Plaintiff Gracia to join certain heirs as necessary
27
parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. (Doc. 38.) The motion was referred to
28
1
1
the undersigned for appropriate action. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff Gracia did not file a timely
2
opposition. L.R. 230(d). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will recommend that
3
Defendant Kern’s motion be granted.
4
II.
5
MOTION TO JOIN HEIRS PURSUANT TO RULE 19
A. Legal Standard
6
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, courts apply a three-part test to determine
7
whether a nonparty (or “absentee”) must be joined in an action. EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co.,
8
610 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2010); Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v.
9
Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012). At the first step, the court must determine whether the
10
absentee should be joined under Rule 19(a). Peabody, 610 F.3d at 1078. At the second step, if the
11
absentee meets the requirements of Rule 19(a), the court must determine whether it is feasible to
12
order that the absentee be joined. Id. Finally, if joinder is not feasible, the court must determine at
13
the third step whether the case can proceed without the absentee or whether the action must be
14
dismissed. Id.
15
B. Discussion
16
Defendant Kern seeks to join Louie Grijalva, Jr.,1 the biological “father heir of Decedent,”
17
as party to this action. Defendant Kern asserts that because California permits only one action for
18
wrongful death, all heirs must be joined to the single action. Defendant Kern therefore concludes
19
that Rule 19 requires joinder of Decedent’s father and requests that Plaintiff Gracia be ordered to
20
identify all heirs of Decedent and join them as parties. (Doc. 38 at 3.)
21
1. Rule 19(a)
The first step of the analysis requires a determination of whether Decedent’s father is a
22
23
“necessary” party and should be joined under Rule 19(a).2 Peabody, 610 F.3d 1078. A party may
24
be necessary under Rule 19(a) in three different ways. Salt River Project, 672 F.3d at 1179. First,
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant Kern reportedly learned that Mr. Grijalva is the biological father of Decedent during
depositions in early December. (Doc. 38 at 3 n.1.)
2
“As of December 1, 2007, Rule 19 no longer refers to ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable’ parties. Instead, it
refers to ‘persons required to be joined if feasible’ and persons in whose absence, if they cannot be joined,
the action should not proceed.” Peabody, 610 F.3d at 1077 n.1. The Court will use these terms
interchangeably.
2
1
a person is necessary if, in the person’s absence, “the court cannot accord complete relief among
2
existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Second, a person is necessary if that person has an
3
interest in the action and resolving the action in the person’s absence may “as a practical matter
4
impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i).
5
Third, a person is necessary if that person has an interest in the action and resolving the action in
6
the person’s absence may “leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double,
7
multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8
19(a)(1)(B)(ii).
9
Under California law, a wrongful death claim may be brought by the “surviving spouse,
10
domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children” of the decedent. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
11
§ 377.60(a). If there is no surviving issue of the decedent, a wrongful death claim may be brought
12
by the persons “who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession.” Id.
13
“While each heir designated in section 377.60 has a personal and separate wrongful death
14
cause of action, the actions are deemed joint, single and indivisible and must be joined together in
15
one suit.” Corder v. Corder, 41 Cal. 4th 644, 652 (2007). Further, “[a]n heir who files a
16
wrongful death action is required to properly join all known heirs in that action.” Id. at 652 n.3.
17
Because the actions are joint, single, and indivisible, and all heirs must join, federal courts have
18
found that absent heirs are necessary parties in wrongful death cases. See Engel v. R.J. Reynolds
19
Tobacco Co., No. CV 2:17-618 WBS GGH, 2017 WL 2119805, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2017);
20
Backer v. United States, No. 1:13-CV-1552 AWI GSA, 2014 WL 4267500, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug.
21
29, 2014) (indicating federal courts have generally held that absent heirs are considered necessary
22
parties in wrongful death cases); Estate of Burkhart v. United States, No. C 07-5467 PJH, 2008
23
WL 4067429, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008) (“Ordinarily in a wrongful death action brought
24
under California law, all heirs must join, and complete relief is not possible without the presence
25
of all the heirs. Thus, the missing heirs may be considered necessary.”). The Court finds that
26
Decedent’s father, as a known heir, is a necessary party under state law.
27
28
2. Feasible
“There are three instances when joinder is not feasible: ‘when venue is improper, when
3
1
the absentee is not subject to personal jurisdiction, and when joinder would destroy subject matter
2
jurisdiction.’” Solares v. Allison, No. 1:20-cv-00323-NONE-BAM, 2022 WL 102216, at *7
3
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir.
4
2005)). Defendant Kern does not directly address these instances, but submits additional
5
information in a footnote implicating whether joinder is feasible. To that end, Defendant Kern
6
reports its counsel “confirmed with [the] internal claims system that Kern did not receive a claim
7
from Louie Grijalva, Jr. relating to decedent.” (Doc. 38 at 4 n.2) (emphasis in original). Courts
8
have found joinder not feasible in circumstances where the missing heirs had failed to file the
9
requisite government claims. See A.D. v. California Highway Patrol, No. C 07-5483 SI, 2009
10
WL 733872, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009) (finding joinder not feasible because missing heir
11
had failed to file a government claim); cf. Estate of Burkhart, 2008 WL 4067429, at *7 (finding
12
joinder not feasible where missing heirs had failed to submit administrative claim). While
13
Defendant Kern may be correct that no claim was filed by Decedent’s father, the Court lacks
14
evidence or a supporting declaration to make such a determination.
15
3. Indispensable
16
“Rule 19(b) applies only if the Court concludes a party is required but joinder is not
17
feasible.” Solares, 2022 WL 102216, at *7; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) (applying Rule 19(b) when
18
“a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined”). Because there is no
19
indication thus far that joinder is not feasible, the Court need not reach the issue of
20
indispensability under Rule 19(b).
21
Defendant Kern suggests that the claims of Decedent’s father are barred by the statute of
22
limitations, which may result in a determination that Decedent’s father is not an indispensable
23
party under Rule 19(b). (See Doc. 38 at 4 n.2.) However, because it is not necessary to reach the
24
issue under Rule 19(b), discussion of whether the claims of Decedent’s father are barred by the
25
statute of limitations is not warranted at this stage. See Solares v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-00323 JLT
26
BAM, 2023 WL 3724814, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2023) (determining discussion of whether
27
heir’s claims barred by statute of limitations not warranted where court need not reach issue of
28
dispensability under Rule 19(b)).
4
1
C. Further Proceedings
2
Under Rule 19(a)(2), “[i]f a person has not been joined as required, the court must order
3
that the person be made a party.” As a result, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff Gracia be
4
directed to file a second amended complaint that either joins Decedent’s father or alleges
5
additional facts establishing why joinder is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2),(c).
6
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7
For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
8
1. Defendant Kern’s motion to join heirs pursuant to Rule 19 (Doc. 38) be granted.
9
2. Plaintiff Gracia be directed to file a second amended complaint that either joins
Decedent’s father or alleges additional facts establishing why joinder is not required.
10
11
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
12
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
13
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may
14
file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
15
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
16
fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
17
number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
18
limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
19
specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
20
findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
21
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated:
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
January 27, 2025
24
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
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?