United States of America vs. $67,906.43 in U.S. Currency et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER The Court GRANTS the 26 Petition to Substitute Claimant ] and SUBSTITUTES the Estate of Dr. Michael Cozzi for Claimant Michael Cozzi. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to show Estate of Dr. Michael Cozzi as party Claimant in place of Michael Cozzi. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 6/28/19. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
$67,906.43 IN U.S. CURRENCY, et al.,
Defendants,
MICHAEL COZZI,
Claimant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:16-CV-362-JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Petition to Substitute Claimant [DE 26], filed June 25,
2019. Claimant Cozzi died on August 15, 2018. On November 15, 2018, Counsel for Claimant Cozzi
filed a notice to the Court informing the parties of Cozzi’s death.

Counsel for Claimant Cozzi

requests that the Court substitute the Estate of Dr. Michael Cozzi for Claimant Michael Cozzi, now
deceased, and represents that counsel for Plaintiff does not object.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) addresses substitution of a party upon death. It
provides:
(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If a party dies and
the claim is not 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).
More than 90 days have passed since the notice of death was filed with the Court on
November 15, 2018. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, “[w]hen an act may or must be done
within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: . . . (A) before the original
time or its extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to

act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). To determine whether the neglect was
excusable, the Court must “tak[e] into consideration all relevant circumstances including the danger
of prejudice to the non-moving party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Marquez v. Mineta, 424 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir.
2005) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Cont’l Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293, 1297
(7th Cir. 1993) (“While couched in mandatory terms, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 25
indicate that the 90-day requirement may be extended by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) . . .
The history of Rule 25(a) and Rule 6(b) makes it clear that the 90 day time period was not intended
to act as a bar to otherwise meritorious actions, and extensions of the period may be liberally
granted.”) (quotation and quotation marks omitted).
Cozzi does not acknowledge that the request for substitution is untimely, but the Court notes
that the parties have represented that the case has settled and the agreed motion for forfeiture will be
filed by July 5, 2019. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for the extension, noting that there will
be no prejudice to the non-moving party.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Petition to Substitute Claimant [DE
26] and SUBSTITUTES the Estate of Dr. Michael Cozzi for Claimant Michael Cozzi. The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to show “Estate of Dr. Michael Cozzi” as party
Claimant in place of Michael Cozzi.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2019.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

2