Augustine v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM ORDER that movant amend or supplement the 26 MOTION to Substitute Party by June 17, 2024. (Compliance Deadline set for 6/17/2024.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas P LeBlanc on 6/3/2024. (crt,Jones, P)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
DIANN AUGUSTINE

:

CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03472

VERSUS

:

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

STATE FARM FIRE &
CASUALTY CO., ET AL

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion to Substitute party, whereby Tequenna Augustine seeks to be
substituted as plaintiff following the death of plaintiff Diann Augustine. Doc. 26. For the reasons
that follow, it is
ORDERED that on or before June 17, 2024, movant is to amend or supplement the Motion
to Substitute to provide sufficient information with supporting documentation that would allow
the court to determine proper substitution pursuant to the procedural mechanism found in Rule
25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in light of the substantive inheritance laws of
the State of Louisiana; and
FURTHER ORDERED that movant comply with the procedural requirements of Rule
25(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the Motion to Substitute as
amended and/or supplemented.
Discussion
Movant Tequenna Augustine asserts that she is the sole heir of Diann Augustine. Doc. 26,
¶ 3. She moves for substitution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, on the understanding that she is the
proper party to be substituted in Diann Augustine’s stead. Id.
1

Under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(a)(1).

“Although Rule 25 is procedural; whether a deceased party’s claim has been

‘extinguished’ and who is a ‘proper party’ for substitution are questions of substantive law.”
Perron on behalf of MFJ v. Travis, No. 20-221, 2023 WL 372064, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 24, 2023)
(citing Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir. 1971)).
The claims in this matter are based in Louisiana law, 1 and the court exercises diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. 1. It is therefore appropriate to “make the determination
regarding proper substitution ‘pursuant to the procedural mechanism found in Rule 25(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in light of the substantive inheritance laws of the State of
Louisiana.’” Coleman v. Anco Insulations, Inc., No. 15-821, 2017 WL 1496932, at *2 (M.D. La.
Apr. 21, 2017) (quoting Wilkerson v. Stalder, 2013 WL 6665745, at * 1 (M.D. La. Dec. 17, 2013)).
Under Louisiana law, “When a party dies during the pendency of an action which is not
extinguished by his death, his legal successor may have himself substituted for the deceased party,
on ex parte written motion supported by proof of his quality.” La. Code Civ. P. art. 801. The
“legal successor” in this context means
(1) The survivors designated in Article 2315.1 of the Civil Code, if the action
survives in their favor; and
(2) Otherwise, it means the succession representative of the deceased appointed by
a court of this state, if the succession is under administration therein; or the heirs
and legatees of the deceased, if the deceased’s succession is not under
administration therein.

Plaintiff Diann Augustine brought state-law claims for breach of contract and breach of statutory obligations
stemming from plaintiff’s insurance claims for hurricane damage.

1

2

Id. “Proof of quality” means something “such as an affidavit of death and heirship or a judgment
of possession.” Kemper v. Don Coleman, Jr., Builder, Inc., 746 So. 2d 11, 15 (La. App. 2 Cir.
1999), writ denied, 752 So. 2d 861 (La. 2000). See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2821 (Official certificates
issued by the proper public officer, which evidence the deceased’s death, marriage, and “all other
facts necessary to establish the relationship of his heirs,” may also be “proof of quality.”).
Considering the foregoing, the court is unable to grant the Motion to Substitute at this time
for the following reasons. Assuming, without determining, that Tequenna Augustine is the “proper
party” and “legal successor” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 and La. Code Civ. P. art.
801, movant did not supply sufficient proof of quality. She attached to her motion plaintiff’s death
certificate and an affidavit of heirship, which was executed solely by the affiant Tequenna
Augustine. Doc. 26, att. 1, p. 1. However, an affidavit submitted to establish someone’s status as
an heir “shall be executed by two persons having knowledge of the facts sworn to.” La. Code Civ.
P. art. 2822. Thus, the attachments to the motion were not sufficient proof of quality.
In addition, it appears that the proper “legal successor” will be “the succession
representative of the deceased appointed by a court of this state, if the succession is under
administration therein; or the heirs and legatees of the deceased, if the deceased's succession is not
under administration therein.” La. Code Civ. P. art. 801(2). Also art. 685. The motion does not
indicate whether Diann Augustine’s succession is under administration, and if so whether a legal
representative has been appointed.
Furthermore, Rule 25 requires: “A motion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing,
must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3). The motion fails to meet these procedural requirements of Rule 25, insofar as

3

a notice of hearing did not accompany the motion to substitute and movant offered no proof that
either the motion or a notice thereof was served on nonparties as provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
Conclusion
As movant, Tequenna Augustine has failed to establish who is the proper party to be
substituted for Diann Augustine and has failed to follow Rule 25’s procedural requirements,
meaning the Motion to Substitute cannot be granted in its current state. Consequently, the Motion
to Substitute must be amended or supplemented with sufficient information and appropriate
supporting documentation to allow the court to identify the proper party to be substituted for Diann
Augustine and must otherwise comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 25.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 3rd day of June, 2024.

_____________________________________
THOMAS P. LEBLANC
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4