Duane and Virginia Lanier Trust v. Sandridge Energy Inc et al

Filing 259

ORDER granting 167 Motion to Substitute Party. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 10/23/2018. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DUANE & VIRGINIA LANIER
)
TRUST, individually and on behalf of )
all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN
)
TRUST I et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-634-G

ORDER
Now before the Court is the unopposed Motion to Substitute Deborah Rath as Lead
Plaintiff filed by movant Deborah Rath (Doc. 167). As set forth below, the Motion is
granted.
In February 2018, the Court considered a Notice and Suggestion of Death of
Lawrence Ross (“Notice”) and Motion to Substitute Sonja Rath, Executor of the Estate of
Lawrence Ross (“Motion”). Lead Plaintiffs Ivan Nibur, Jase Luna, Matthew Willenbucher
and the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust reported in those documents that Lead Plaintiff
Lawrence Ross had “died on or about June 28, 2017 during the pendency of this action,”
Doc. 162 at 1, and they requested that the Court substitute Sonja Rath as Lead Plaintiff for
Ross.
The Court denied the Motion, see Doc. 164, after finding the Motion and Notice
lacking. It advised Lead Plaintiffs that, if they again sought substitution, they must

(1) demonstrate that any renewed motion as well as the Notice had been served on
all nonparties in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 25(a)(3);
(2) provide documents that substantiated Lead Plaintiffs’ claim that Sonja Rath had
been appointed as the executor of the Estate of Lawrence Ross, deceased; and
(3) show that Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., had been authorized to
represent Sonja Rath, Executor of the Estate of Lawrence Ross, deceased, in this action.
See Doc. 164 at 2.
Movant Deborah Rath subsequently requested that she be substituted as Lead
Plaintiff for Ross. In support of her motion, Deborah Rath has submitted the Declaration
of Jonathan Horne, an attorney at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., see Doc. 168, and certain
exhibits, which show
(1) that on December 7, 2017, the Clerk of the Probate Court in Pima County,
Arizona, appointed and authorized Sonja Rath to act as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Lawrence R. Ross (“Estate”) without restriction, see Doc. 168-1 at 2;
(2) that on February 14, 2018, Sonja Rath, acting in her capacity as Personal
Representative and Executrix of the Estate, executed a Limited Appointment of Agent and
Attorney-in-Fact, see Doc. 168-2, and appointed Deborah Rath "as the Estate’s agent for
the limited purpose of prosecuting all claims, demands, and causes of action of any kind
whatsoever which the Estate has or may have arising from the Estate’s investment(s) in
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I and SandRidge Mississippian Trust II[,]" id. at 2, and
further appointed Deborah Rath “as her true and lawful attorney-in-fact for the limited
purpose of exercising all powers relating to such causes of action[,]” id.; and
2

(3) that Deborah Rath has retained Lead Counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., to
prosecute the Estate’s claims involving SandRidge Mississippian Trust I and SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II, see Doc. 168-3, and that Lead Counsel has provided copies of the
Notice to nonparties Deborah Rath and Sonja Rath. See Doc. 168 at 1, ¶ 3.
Because Lead Plaintiffs have now complied with the Court’s instructions and
because the relief requested is warranted,1 the Court
(1) GRANTS the Motion to Substitute Deborah Rath as Lead Plaintiff [Doc. 167]
filed on February 15, 2018;
(2) SUBSTITUTES Deborah Rath, as agent of the Estate and attorney-in-fact of
Sonja Rath, in her capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lawrence Ross,
deceased, for Lawrence Ross as a Lead Plaintiff for the limited purpose of prosecuting the
Estate’s claims in this action; and

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), to the extent such rule applies in this instance,
requires each action “be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” Although
generally an “attorney-in-fact” is not authorized to bring suit in his or her own name, see 4
Moore’s Federal Practice § 17.10[4], at 32 (3d ed. 2018)(“An attorney-in-fact is not a real
party in interest. The attorney is merely an agent of the real party in interest and does not
possess interests sufficient to qualify for real party in interest status. Thus, the attorneyin-fact cannot bring suit in its own name.”)(footnote omitted), the Court finds the papers
submitted by Lead Plaintiffs and Deborah Rath support the conclusion that Deborah Rath,
as agent for the Estate and attorney-in-fact for Sonja Rath, in her capacity as the Estate’s
Personal Representative, is prosecuting this action on the Estate’s behalf and that “‘[t]he
purpose of Rule 17(a)[, which] is to ensure that the judgment will have proper res judicata
effect by preventing a party not joined in the complaint from asserting the ‘real party
interest’ status in an identical future suit[,]’” White Oak Global Advisors, LLC v. Pistol
Drilling, LLC, 2015 WL 11236968 *2 (W.D. Okla. April 15, 2015)(quotation omitted),
will be served by Deborah Rath's substitution for Ross.
3

(3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to amend the docket in this matter to reflect
this substitution.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2018.

4