Robbins v. Allied Glove Corporation, et al.
Filing
133
ORDER Granting 114 Motion to Substitute Party. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/5/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
***
11
MARIAN ETHEL ROBBINS, personal
representative on behalf of ESTATE OF
BURRELL ROBBINS,
12
Plaintiff,
10
Case No. 2:11-cv-01610-MMD-CWH
ORDER
14
(Motion for Substitution of Party
– dkt. no. 114)
v.
13
ALLIED GLOVE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
I.
SUMMARY
18
Before the Court is Plaintiff Estate of Burrell Robbins’ (“Estate”) Motion for
19
Substitution of Party. (Dkt. no. 114.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is
20
granted.
21
II.
BACKGROUND
22
On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff Marian Ethel Robbins, Personal Representative of the
23
Estate of Burrell Robbins, died. On June 20, 2012, all parties were served with a Notice
24
of Death pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
25
In their Motion, John and Paul Robbins (herein after “proposed representatives” or
26
“Movants”), the personal representatives and co-administrators of the Estate of Marian
27
Ethel Robbins, request to be substituted in Marian Robbins’ place as Plaintiffs in this
28
case.
1
III.
DISCUSSION
2
A.
3
Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedures provides:
4
6
If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order
substitution of the proper party. The motion for substitution may be made
by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If 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.
7
Rule 25(a) authorizes the substitution of proper parties when an existing party
8
dies after the suit is commenced. Rule 25 leaves the substitution decision to the trial
9
court’s sound discretion. In re Bernal, 207 F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P.
10
25 advisory committee note (1963) (substitution “will ordinarily be granted” but rule gives
11
trial court discretion to account for potential unfairness or prejudice).
5
Legal Standard
Rule 25 “requires two affirmative steps in order to trigger the running of the 90-
12
13
day period.”
In re MGM Mirage Sec. Litig., 282 F.R.D. 600, 602 (D. Nev. 2012) (citing
14
Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994)).
15
suggest the death of the party upon the record.” Id. (citations omitted). “Second, the
16
suggesting party must serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of
17
the deceased with a suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of
18
the motion to substitute.” Id. (citations omitted).
“First, a party must formally
19
The parties do not contest that Movants’ Motion to Substitute falls within the
20
statutory period. Nor could they, as Movants filed and served the Notice of Death on
21
June 20, 2012, and filed the Motion for Substitution 62 days later on August 21, 2012.
B.
22
23
Analysis
1.
24
Whether Movants are Legally
Representatives of the Estate
Authorized
Co-Personal
25
Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that Movants “provides absolutely no
26
evidence showing that John Robbins or Paul Robbins have been legally authorized to
27
serve as ‘co-personal representatives’ of Ms. Robbins[’] estate.” (Dkt. no. 115 at 2.)
28
///
2
1
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1), the proper party for substitution is “the person who
2
has the legal right and authority to . . . defend against the claims brought against the
3
deceased party.” James William Moore, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 25.12[3] (Matthew
4
Bender 3d ed. 2006). “The movant must provide evidence that the party to be
5
substituted is the successor in interest or legal representative of the decedent.” Totten v.
6
Blair Excavators, Inc., No. C-03-5030, 2006 WL 3391439, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22,
7
2006) (citing Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying Rule
8
25(a)(1) to legal representatives of the deceased defendant’s estate); Mallonee v.
9
Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1952) (“Rule 25(a)(1) applies only to the substitution
10
of legal representatives”) (emphasis added)).
11
Movants attach several documents to their Reply Brief demonstrating that the
12
proposed representatives have been legally authorized to serve as co-personal
13
representatives of Ms. Robbins’ Estate. First, Article Five of Ms. Robbins’ will appoints
14
John and Paul Robbins as her co-personal representatives.
15
Second, Movants attach a Letter of Co-Personal Representative substituting John and
16
Paul Robbins as personal representatives in the place of and stead of Marian Ethel
17
Robbins in the Estate of Burrell L. Robbins. (Dkt. no. 122-2.) The document was filed
18
on July 24, 2012, in Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Yavapai. (Id.)
The Court determines that these documents suffice to establish that Movants are
19
20
(Dkt. no. 122-1 at 4.)
in fact the legally authorized co-personal representatives of Ms. Robbins’ estate.
21
2.
22
Whether Movants Meet the Residency Requirement for
Substitution or Satisfy any Exceptions Therein
23
Defendant Okonite opposes the Motion to Substitute on separate grounds,
24
arguing that Movants fail to identify whether John and/or Paul Robbins are residents of
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
Nevada.1 NRS § 139.010(4) holds that “no person is entitled to letters of administration
2
if the person . . . is not a resident of Nevada. . . .”
3
NRS § 10.155 defines “legal residence” as “that place where the person has been
4
physically present within the State or county, as the case may be, during all of the period
5
for which residence is claimed by the person.”2 See also Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
6
Court ex rel. County of Clark, 44 P.3d 506, 511 (Nev. 2002) (stating that NRS § 10.155
7
“requires actual, physical presence in Nevada during ‘all of the period’ for which
8
residency is claimed. The only exception is for absence with a good faith intention of
9
returning without delay.”)
10
At the December 4, 2012, hearing regarding this Motion, counsel for Movants
11
informed the Court that John Robbins has continuously resided in Nevada since 1987.
12
Counsel for Defendants did not contest this. Accordingly, John Robbins may serve as
13
personal representative of Ms. Robbins’ estate in accordance with NRS § 139.010.
14
Moreover, Paul Robbins may also serve as personal representative of Ms. Robbins’
15
estate because NRS § 139.010(4)(a) allows nonresidents to serve as representatives if
16
they “[a]ssociate as coadministrator [to] a resident of the State of Nevada . . . .” Because
17
nonresident Paul Robbins associates with resident John Robbins as co-administrators
18
and co-personal representatives of Ms. Robbins’ estate, both Movants may be
19
substituted as Plaintiffs in this case.
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant Okonite also opposes the Motion because Movants did not attach a
proposed amended complaint to their Motion for Substitution of Party. However, Movants
cured this deficiency by attaching a proposed third amended complaint to their Reply
Brief. (Dkt. no. 122-4.)
2
The statute further states that “[s]hould any person absent himself or herself from
the jurisdiction of his or her residence with the intention in good faith to return without
delay and continue his or her residence, the time of such absence is not considered in
determining the fact of residence.”
4
1
2
3
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Movants’ Motion to Substitute Party (dkt. no.
114) is GRANTED.
DATED THIS 5th day of December 2012.
5
6
7
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?