Bement v. Cox et al

Filing 129

ORDER - This action is dismissed with prejudice because no motion for substitution was made in accordance with the Court's order. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 127 ) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/29/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SC)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

BARON BEMENT,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:12-cv-00475-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JAMES G. COX, et. al.,
Defendant.

10
11
12

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Baron Bement filed an amended complaint pursuant to

13

§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 70.) On July 7, 2020 in a Joint

14

Status Report submitted to the Court’s order to file a proposed joint pretrial order, the

15

parties gave notice that Bement passed away on June 8, 2020. (ECF No. 124.) Defendant

16

then filed a suggestion of death on the record. (ECF No. 126.) On July 8, 2021, pursuant

17

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), the Court directed any party or the decedent’s

18

successor or representative to file a motion for substitution within 90 days after service of

19

a statement noting death. (ECF No. 125.) That deadline has now expired, and no party

20

has filed a motion for substitution.1

21

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), “[i]f a party dies and the claim is

22

not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for

23

substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.

24

If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the

25

action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

26
27
28

1On

December 16, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action with
prejudice because no party had been substituted. (ECF No. 127.) No response was filed,
and on March 23, 2021, Defendants filed a reply further urging the Court to dismiss the
matter with prejudice. (ECF No. 128.) Because the Court is dismissing the action, the
Court will deny the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 127) as moot.

It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice because no

1
2

motion for substitution was made in accordance with the Court’s order.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 127) is denied as

3
4

moot.

5

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

6

DATED THIS 29th Day of April 2021.

7
8
9

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2