Cooley v. City of Vallejo et al
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/28/2015 DENYING plaintiffs' 63 Amended Motion for Substitution and VACATING 8/20/2015 Motion Hearing. Any Motion for Substitution by FMC, Jr. accompanied by Motion to Appoint a guardian ad litem, shall be filed by licensed attorney no later than 9/3/2015. If proper Motion is not filed by 9/3/2015, Court will issue Findings and Recommendations for dismissal of action. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,
No. 2:14-cv-0620 TLN KJN PS
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER
v.
14
15
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Presently pending before the court is an amended motion to substitute filed by Frederick
19
20
Marc Cooley and Celestein Lavonda Tyson, the biological parents of now-deceased plaintiff
21
Frederick Marceles Cooley1, requesting to be substituted as plaintiffs in this action. (ECF No.
22
63.)2 For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES the motion.3
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Due to the similarity in names, the court, for purposes of this order, refers to now-deceased
plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley as “Decedent,” and to his father Frederick Marc Cooley as
“Mr. Cooley.” Decedent’s biological mother, Celestein Lavonda Tyson, is referred to as “Ms.
Tyson.” Decedent’s minor child, Frederick Marceles Cooley Jr., is referred to as “FMC, Jr.”
2
3
This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
The court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule
230(g).
1
After the court, in response to the statement of Decedent’s death filed by defendants,
1
2
issued an April 24, 2015 order requiring any motion for substitution to be filed within 90 days of
3
that order, Mr. Cooley filed his original motion for substitution on May 28, 2015. (ECF Nos. 56-
4
58.) On June 19, 2015, the court denied that motion without prejudice. (ECF No. 62.)
5
In its June 19, 2015 order, the court noted that there was no dispute that Decedent had
6
died, and also found that Decedent’s claims were not extinguished by his death.4 Nevertheless,
7
because Mr. Cooley had not demonstrated that he was Decedent’s successor in interest under
8
applicable probate or intestate succession law, and thus the proper party for substitution, the court
9
denied the motion. However, the denial was without prejudice to the refiling of a properly-
10
supported motion. The court outlined the applicable law with respect to successors in interest,
11
and directed that any renewed motion for substitution be supported by an adequate factual
12
showing concerning Mr. Cooley’s claimed status as successor in interest, as outlined in greater
13
detail in the court’s June 19, 2015 order. (See ECF No. 62.)
14
Thereafter, on July 22, 2015, Mr. Cooley and Ms. Tyson filed the instant amended motion
15
for substitution. (ECF No. 63.) As Decedent’s biological parents, the movants claim to be
16
successors in interest to Decedent. However, the evidence submitted along with their motion
17
actually refutes that claim. The declarations of Mr. Cooley and Ms. Tyson, as well as the report
18
of an investigator that was retained by Mr. Cooley to investigate Decedent’s affairs, indicate that
19
Decedent died without a will and was not married at the time of his death, but that Decedent is
20
survived by one child, his three-year-old son, FMC Jr., who presently lives with his biological
21
mother, Jenifer Johnson. (See ECF No. 63, Exs. A-C.) As the court explained in its previous
22
June 19, 2015 order, under the California Probate Code, parents of a decedent who died intestate
23
(without a will) inherit only if the decedent has no surviving spouse/domestic partner and no issue
24
(children), in which case the parents take equally. (ECF No. 62 at 4 (citing Cal. Prob. Code §
25
6402(a)-(b)). Because Decedent here is survived by a child (FMC Jr.), Decedent’s parents inherit
26
nothing. Instead, based on the record before the court, FMC Jr. is Decedent’s proper successor in
27
28
4
The court’s analysis with respect to Mr. Cooley’s original motion for substitution is outlined in
detail in the court’s June 19, 2015 order and is incorporated here by reference. (See ECF No. 62.)
2
1
interest. Therefore, the court denies the motion for substitution filed by Mr. Cooley and Ms.
2
Tyson, because they are not Decedent’s successors in interest.
3
Although FMC Jr. is Decedent’s successor in interest, FMC Jr. is a minor and thus does
4
not have the capacity to step into Decedent’s shoes and prosecute Decedent’s surviving claims.
5
To be sure, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for FMC Jr., but the guardian ad litem
6
would have to retain a licensed attorney to prosecute the surviving claims in federal court on
7
behalf of the minor. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e
8
hold that a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining
9
a lawyer.”); Estate of Laffoon v. Christianson, 2011 WL 1743645, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)
10
(“[A] non-attorney parent or guardian cannot bring a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of a minor
11
or incompetent without retaining a lawyer. This is so because the minor’s right to trained legal
12
assistance is greater than the parent’s right to appear pro se.”).
13
At this time, the 90-day period to file a motion for substitution has expired, subjecting
14
Decedent’s claims to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) (“A motion for substitution may be
15
made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made
16
within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent
17
must be dismissed.”). Nevertheless, because attempts to substitute were made during the 90-day
18
period and because related efforts have now revealed Decedent’s proper successor in interest, the
19
court exercises its discretion to grant a limited extension of time to allow FMC, Jr. to move for
20
substitution. However, any such motion shall be accompanied by a motion to appoint an
21
appropriate guardian ad litem for FMC, Jr. in accordance with Local Rule 202, Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 17, and other applicable law, and shall be filed by a licensed attorney who has
23
been retained to prosecute the surviving claims and who files a notice of appearance as counsel
24
in the action.5
25
5
26
27
28
Assuming that FMC, Jr.’s biological mother, Jenifer Johnson, affirmatively consents, Mr.
Cooley or Ms. Tyson may potentially apply for appointment as FMC, Jr.’s guardian ad litem,
provided that they are appropriately qualified. The court expresses no opinion on such an
application at this juncture. However, neither Mr. Cooley nor Ms. Tyson can potentially proceed
as guardian ad litem without retaining a licensed attorney to represent them in prosecuting the
surviving claims on FMC, Jr.’s behalf.
3
1
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The amended motion for substitution (ECF No. 63) is DENIED and the August 20,
3
4
2015 hearing on the motion is VACATED.
2. Any motion for substitution by FMC, Jr., accompanied by a motion to appoint a
5
guardian ad litem, shall be filed by a licensed attorney in accordance with the terms of
6
this order no later than September 3, 2015.
7
8
9
10
3. If a proper motion for substitution is not filed by September 3, 2015, the court will
issue findings and recommendations for dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?