Hightower v. Birdsong et al
Filing
51
ORDER CONTINUING STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO REOPEN ACTION AND TO SUBSTITUTE ESTATE AND ESTATE'S LAWYER IN PLACE OF DECEASED DEFENDANT by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 49 Motion to Reopen Action and to Substitute Estate and Estate's Lawyer in place of Deceased Defendant. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2018)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
LARRY LEWIS HIGHTOWER,
Case No. 15-cv-03966-YGR (PR)
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7
EDWARD BIRDSONG,
Defendant.
8
9
I.
ORDER CONTINUING STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE; AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO REOPEN ACTION AND TO
SUBSTITUTE ESTATE AND
ESTATE’S LAWYER IN PLACE OF
DECEASED DEFENDANT
INTRODUCTION
This action has been stayed and administratively closed due to issues arising from the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
death of one of the parties, Defendant Edward Birdsong. It is now once again before the Court to
12
address pending motions by Plaintiff to reopen action and to substitute the deceased defendant
13
with John Birdsong, who is the Executor for the Birdsong Estate, as well as Linda Takahashi, the
14
Estate’s lawyer. See Dkt. 49.
15
For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions, will continue the
16
stay and administrative closure of these proceedings, and will do nothing further until (a) Plaintiff
17
follows the correct procedure to substitute in a proper defendant in place of the deceased
18
defendant, or (b) the deceased defendant’s representative either (1) files a document that triggers
19
the ninety-day deadline in Federal rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) for the plaintiff to file a motion to
20
substitute a proper defendant in place of the deceased defendant or (2) moves to substitute in as a
21
defendant.
22
II.
BACKGROUND
23
The following background is taken from the Court’s August 31, 2017 Order:
24
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Dkt. 1. Plaintiff named Defendant as well as the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Id. at 1-2.
Upon screening the complaint, the Court dismissed all claims against
the CDCR—state and federal—because the Eleventh Amendment
prevents the CDCR, which is a state agency, from being sued in
federal court. Dkt. 9 at 2. The Court found that Plaintiff had alleged
a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant for
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment rights, stemming from severe complications from
treatment he received from February and April 2013. Id. at 2-3.
Defendant was then served with process. As mentioned above,
Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that he was not
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, and that
Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Dkt. 24.
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Letter of
Intent and Amendment.” Dkt. 34. In that filing, Plaintiff informed
the Court that Defendant Birdsong has passed away. Id. at 1. Plaintiff
then advised the Court that he intended to seek leave to amend his
complaint to: (1) name the SVSP Warden and CDCR Secretary as
Defendants; and (2) to substitute the Estate of Defendant Birdsong as
a Defendant. See id.
On April 17, 2017, counsel for Defendant, Lynne G. Stocker, Esq.,
filed a document confirming that Defendant had indeed passed away
on February 9, 2017. Dkt. 35 at 1. Defense counsel stated that she
had “no contact with Dr. Birdsong’s family, successors or
representatives.” Id. at 2. Defense counsel further added that she
“reviewed online records for Monterey County Superior Court but has
located no probate proceedings for Dr. Birdsong’s estate.” Id.
Due to the issues presented by Defendant’s death, the Court, in an
Order dated May 15, 2017, directed defense counsel to comply with
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 by: (1) filing
a formal notice of suggestion of death on the record; and (2) serving
nonparty successors or representatives of Defendant with a
suggestion of death in the manner required by Rule 25(a)(3). Dkt. 36
at 3. The Court further instructed defense counsel to conduct a more
reasonable investigation into the status of Defendant’s estate, stating
as follows:
If counsel is able to obtain the name and address of the
representative of Defendant’s estate, the Court orders
counsel to serve nonparty successors or representatives
of Defendant with a suggestion of death in the manner
required by Rule 25(a)(3), and to notify the Court by
filing a proof of service reflecting of the name and
address of the individual so notified, as well as the date
of compliance . . . .
Id. at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3)). Finally, because Plaintiff had
not yet filed a motion for substitution, the Court granted him an
extension of time to do so. Id. at 3-4.
On June 12, 2017, defense counsel filed a declaration (in response to
the Court’s May 15, 2017 Order) on behalf of the specially appearing
CDCR. Dkt. 37. Counsel stated that a “petition in probate had been
filed by a John Birdsong under Case No. 17PR000131.” Id. at 2.
Counsel further explained that John Birdsong was represented by
Linda Takahashi, Esq., and counsel stated as follows:
On May 30, 2017 and June 7, 2017, I spoke by
telephone with Ms. Takahashi. We discussed the
2
1
2
status of this case and the Court’s Order. Ms.
Takahashi stated that she does not have authorization
from her client to release his personal contact
information to me.
3
Stocker Decl. ¶ 7.
4
Also on June 12, 2017, defense counsel filed a “Suggestion of
Death of Defendant Dr. Edward Birdsong,” which indicates that
Defendant “is deceased as of February 9, 2017.” Dkt. 38.
5
6
Dkt. 48 at 1-3 (footnote omitted). As mentioned above, the Court stayed this matter upon
7
determining that Plaintiff had failed in his initial attempt to substitute the deceased defendant
8
because he had not met the requirement to “file a claim with the decedent’s estate if he wishes to
9
pursue his complaint.” Id. at 4. The Court further explained as follows:
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Under California law, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a
cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the
person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations
period.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.20(a). “Subject to Part 4
(commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code
governing creditor claims, a cause of action against a decedent that
survives may be asserted against the decedent’s personal
representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the
decedent’s successor in interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.40.
That introductory phrase in California Code of Civil Procedure §
377.40 is critical—the plaintiff must comply with the claims
presentation requirements of California Probate Code § 9000 et seq.,
or he will be unable to pursue his cause of action against the
decedent’s personal representative. See Cal. Prob. Code § 9370(a).
According to California Probate Code § 9370:
(a) An action or proceeding pending against the
decedent at the time of death may not be continued
against the decedent’s personal representative unless
all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) A claim is first filed as provided in this part.
(2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part.
(3) Within three months after the notice of
rejection is given,
the plaintiff applies to the court
in which the action or proceeding is pending for an
order to substitute the personal
representative in
the action or proceeding. This paragraph
applies
only if the notice of rejection contains a statement that
the plaintiff has three months within which to apply for
an order for substitution.
(b) No recovery shall be allowed in the action against
property in the decedent’s estate unless proof is made
of compliance with this section.
3
1
Cal. Prob. Code § 9370. Here, Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim can
survive the death of Defendant, but Plaintiff must comply with the
claims presentation requirements of the California Probate Code if he
wants to pursue this action against Defendant’s personal
representative. This Court will not relieve him of those obligations
or assist him in satisfying those obligations.
2
3
4
Id. at 4-5.
5
6
III.
DISCUSSION
As explained above, Plaintiff requests to reopen this action because he has filed another
7
motion to substitute the deceased defendant with John Birdsong (Executor for the Birdsong Estate)
8
and Attorney Takahashi, the Estate’s lawyer. See Dkt. 49.
9
In opposition to the motion, Attorney Stocker, former counsel of the deceased defendant
10
(who is specially appearing for the CDCR), argues that Plaintiff’s motions should be denied
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the California
12
Probate Code, stating as follows:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
[Plaintiff] attests, under penalty of perjury, that he has “followed the
Cal. Prob. Code § 9370” which requires that a claim be filed with the
Probate Estate and that the claim be rejected before Plaintiff may
apply to this Court for an order to substitute the personal
representative. (Dkt. No. 49.) As noted in the moving papers, “No
recovery shall be allowed in the action against property in the
decedent’s estate unless PROOF is made of compliance with this
section.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiff sets forth the terms of the
statute in his moving papers, as they were set forth in this Court’s
Order of August 31, 2017 (Dkt. No. 48) so he is clearly aware of its
requirements. However, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the claims
presentation requirements of the California Probate Code and has
failed to comply with this Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 48.)
Dkt. 50 at 23. In support of her argument, Attorney Stocker requests that this Court take Judicial
21
Notice, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, of the docket that she obtained from the Monterey
22
County Superior Court’s website. See id., Ex. A. The Court GRANTS her request for judicial
23
notice. The record shows that the Monterey County Superior Court docket—as it relates to the
24
Estate of Edward Birdsong (Case No. 17PR000131)—reflects that no claim against the estate has
25
been filed by Plaintiff. See id.
26
As it has previously noted, Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim can survive the death of
27
Defendant, but Plaintiff must comply with the claims presentation requirements of the California
28
4
1
Probate Code if he wants to pursue this action against Defendant’s personal representative.
2
Because the record shows that Plaintiff has not done so, the Court DENIES his requests to reopen
3
action and to substitute the deceased defendant with the aforementioned individuals. Such a
4
denial is without prejudice to refiling after Plaintiff complies with the aforementioned claims
5
presentation requirements of the California Probate Code.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The Court finds it necessary to repeat the rules governing substitution of a deceased party
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), as follows:
If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may
order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may
be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.
If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement
noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be
dismissed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). Rule 25(a) “describes the manner in which parties are to be substituted in
12
federal court once it is determined that the applicable substantive law allows the action to survive
13
a party’s death.” Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 587 n.3 (1978) (internal quotation marks
14
and citation omitted); see also First Idaho Corp. v. Davis, 867 F.2d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir.1989)
15
(“Rule 25(a) dictates the method of substitution of parties in the federal courts and is purely
16
procedural”). A “proper party” under Rule 25(a)(1) is the legal representative of the decedent,
17
e.g., the executor of the decedent’s Will or the administrator of his Estate. See Mallonee v. Fahey,
18
200 F.2d 918, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1953).
19
Although Rule 25(a)(1) provides a ninety-day window to file a motion for substitution or
20
the action will be dismissed, there are two requirements to trigger the commencement of that
21
period. “First, a party must formally suggest the death of the party upon the record.” Barlow v.
22
Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). The advisory committee also recognized that a
23
“representative of the deceased party [who] desires to limit the time within which another may
24
make the motion” may suggest the death upon the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 advisory
25
committee’s note. Second, the suggestion of death must be served on the parties to the action
26
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), “while non-party successors or representatives of
27
the deceased party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner provided by Rule 4 for
28
5
1
the service of a summons.” Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233.
Just as it had previously found in its August 31, 2017 Order, this Court still finds that
2
3
neither of Rule 25(a)’s requirements have been satisfied in this action. First, Attorney Stocker,
4
who filed the statement of Defendant’s death, had no continuing authority to represent the now-
5
deceased client, is not a party to this action and is not the legal representative of Defendant’s
6
Estate. Therefore, the statement of death she filed did not satisfy Rule 25(a). See Woodson v. City
7
of Richmond, 2014 WL 7462509 (E.D. Va. 2014) (deceased party’s lawyer is not allowed to file a
8
statement noting a party’s death under Rule 25(a) because the lawyer is neither a party nor a
9
representative or successor of the deceased party). Second, even if Attorney Stocker had the
authority to file the statement of death, she did not serve that statement in the manner required by
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Rule 25(a) and therefore did not trigger the 90-day period within which Plaintiff must file a
12
motion to substitute a proper party. The lawyer did not serve the statement of death on the
13
“nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased party . . . in the manner provided by Rule
14
4 for the service of a summons.” Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. Therefore, at this time, the Court still
15
finds that the ninety-day period in Rule 25(a) for Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute in a proper
16
party in place of the deceased defendant has not yet been triggered because the suggestion of death
17
has not been filed and served properly. This action will remain stayed and administratively closed
18
until Plaintiff files a proper motion to substitute the legal representative in place of Defendant
19
(and only doing so after filing a claim with the decedent’s estate) or until Plaintiff’s legal
20
representative takes action. Plaintiff must act diligently to comply with the claims presentation
21
requirement of the California Probate Code and the deadlines therein to avoid losing forever his
22
ability to pursue a claim against Defendant’s legal representative.
23
IV.
CONCLUSION
24
For the reasons outlined above,
25
1.
The Court GRANTS the request for judicial notice of the record showing that the
26
Monterey County Superior Court docket—as it relates to the Estate of Edward Birdsong (Case No.
27
17PR000131)—reflects that no claim against the estate has been filed by Plaintiff.
28
2.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests to reopen this action and to substitute the
6
1
deceased defendant with John Birdsong (Executor for the Birdsong Estate) and Attorney
2
Takahashi, the Estate’s lawyer. Dkt. 49.
3
3.
The Court will continue the stay and administrative closure of these proceedings,
4
and will do nothing further until (a) Plaintiff follows the correct procedure to substitute in a proper
5
defendant in place of the deceased defendant, or (b) the deceased defendant’s representative either
6
(1) files a document that triggers the ninety-day deadline in Federal rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)
7
for the plaintiff to file a motion to substitute a proper defendant in place of the deceased defendant
8
or (2) moves to substitute in as a defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
4.
This Order terminates Docket No. 49.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 17, 2018
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?