Bah v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 10/23/2015. (bus, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
ALHAJI SHERIFF BAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN
AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*****
Civil Action No.: CBD-14-2803
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court are Plaintiff Alhaji Sheriff Bah’s Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff
(the “Motion”) (ECF No. 29), opposition and reply thereto. The Court has reviewed the Motion,
related memoranda, and applicable law. No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6
(D. Md.). For the reasons presented below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.
Factual Background
Plaintiff Alhaji Sheriff Bah (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“Defendant”), alleging that on January 23, 2013, Edwards
Fields, one of Defendant’s bus drivers, negligently operated the bus Plaintiff had just boarded
causing him to fall and sustain injuries, including a head injury. Pl.’s Compl. 2. At the time of
the alleged incident, Plaintiff was seventy-eight (78) years old. This case was referred to the
Honorable William Connelly to conduct a settlement conference, which was scheduled for July
9, 2015. ECF No. 26. A two-day jury trial was scheduled for September 8, 2015. ECF No. 25.
1
A day before the scheduled settlement conference, counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff was
out of the country, and the settlement conference was postponed. ECF No. 27. The Court then
cancelled the pre-trial conference and trial. ECF No. 28. The Motion was subsequently filed on
August 12, 2015.
In the Motion, Plaintiff alleges that before the settlement conference, he became seriously
ill and was taken to Sierra Leone, Africa, where he is originally from. Pl.’s. Mot. 2. Plaintiff
further alleges that as a result of his illness and his advanced age, he is incompetent to continue
litigating this case. Id. Plaintiff asserts that on July 22, 2015, he granted a Power of Attorney to
his nephew, Foday Bassy Kamara, who resides in Hamburg, Germany, allowing Mr. Kamara to
litigate this case on Plaintiff’s behalf. Id. Plaintiff therefore argues that under Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(b), the Court should substitute Plaintiff for his nephew, Mr. Kamara. Id.
Defendant opposes the Motion arguing that Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of his
illness, and of his location outside of the country. Def.’s Opp. 2. Defendant further argues that
Plaintiff has not provided any documentary evidence to find, by clear and convincing evidence,
that he is incompetent to pursue this litigation. Id. at 3. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has
failed to provide admissible documentary evidence supporting Mr. Kamara as a substituted
plaintiff. Id.
In his reply, Plaintiff argues that there is no need for additional evidence to prove his
incompetency. Pl.’s Reply 2. In support of this statement, Plaintiff highlights portions of his
deposition where he indicated that he continued to experience pain as a result of the accident,
and also reiterates that he became seriously ill shortly before the scheduled settlement
conference. Id. Plaintiff then argues that the Power of Attorney is admissible not as a public
2
document, but instead as a private document, and as a result, the Federal Rules of Evidence
relating to authentication or identification of foreign documents are irrelevant. Pl.’s Reply 2-3.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that substituting Mr. Kamara as the plaintiff in this case would not cause
any prejudice to Defendant, and substantial justice requires the Court to grant the Motion. Pl.’s
Reply 3.
II.
Analysis
Under Rule 25(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f a party becomes
incompetent, the court may, on motion, permit the action to be continued by or against the
party’s representative.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(b). The decision to allow substitution of parties
during pending litigation is within the trial court’s discretion. See, e.g., Nat’l Indep. Theatre
Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 748 F.2d 602, 610 (11th Cir. 1984). For Rule
25(b) to apply, the incompetency must arise during the suit, not before the action is commenced.
See Waldman v. Pediatric Servs. of America, Inc., No. CIV. A. 97–7257, 1998 WL 770629, at *4
(E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 1998).
In this case, the Court will not, in its discretion, permit substitution. Although there is no
case law in the Fourth Circuit directly addressing the issue raised in the Motion, the Court is
persuaded by the reasoning of courts from other jurisdictions that have resolved similar motions.
Plaintiff’s argument that he became “seriously ill,” without more, is insufficient to establish that
Plaintiff is incompetent. In this case, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has been declared legally
incompetent in a court proceeding. See Pass v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 3:13–CV–00016–SA–
SAA, 2014 WL 5511082, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 31, 2014) (denying the motion for party
substitution under Rule 25(b) because there was no evidence that the plaintiff had been declared
legally incompetent in a court proceeding). Plaintiff has not provided any medical evidence
3
regarding his mental and physical capacities.1 See Turner v. Neptune Towing & Recovery, Inc.,
No. 8:09–CV–1071–T–27AEP, 2011 WL 2981786, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2011) (denying the
plaintiff’s request for party substitution under Rule 25(b) because there was no medical evidence
regarding the plaintiff’s mental and physical capacities and the plaintiff did not show that she
had ever been adjudicated incompetent); see also McBroom v. Potter, No. 2:06-cv-767-MEFSRW, 2007 WL 1424530, at *2 (M.D. Ala. May 14, 2007) (denying the plaintiff’s request for
party substitution under Rule 25(b) based on the “scant medical information” that the plaintiff
was suffering from physical and emotional problems).
Defendant cites Kuelbs v. Hill, 615 F. 3d 1037, 1042 (8th Cir. 2010) and argues that
because Rule 25(b) does not define competency, the Court should look to state law to determine
whether to exercise its discretion and permit the substitution. Def.’s Opp. 2. The Court has
reviewed the Kuelbs decision which does not stand for the proposition advanced by Defendant.
In addition there is authority from the Fourth Circuit suggesting the opposite of what Defendant
proposes. See Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 128 (4th Cir. 1969) (“The Rules of Civil
Procedure are designed to prescribe the procedure in Federal courts. The question of substitution
is procedural, recognized by the rules as such, and not controlled or governed by local law.”
(quoting Jones v. Schellenberger, 196 F.2d 852, 854 (7th Cir. 1952)). For these reasons, the
Court will not look to state law and instead concludes that under Rule 25(b), Plaintiff has not
shown incompetency requiring substitution.
1
In his reply, filed on September 16, 2015, Plaintiff indicates that he has “requested a written report from
[his] medical doctor in Sierra Leone” and requests “some time” to provide it to the Court. Pl.’s Reply 2. As of the
date of this memorandum opinion, the Court has not received any medical evidence to support Plaintiff’s position.
4
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.
October 23, 2015
/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
CBD/yv
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?