Kramer v. Ray Klein, Inc., et al

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 34 as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute a Party 25 is GRANTED, and Douglas Kramer shall be substituted as the plaintiff in this action in place of the decedent plaintiff, Shasta Kramer. Signed on 1/23/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

SHASTA KRAMER,
Plaintiff,

No. 3: 17-cv-00496-SB

v.
OPINION AND ORDER
RAY KLEIN, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,
On November 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [34], recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute a Party [25]
should be GRANTED and Douglas Kramer should be substituted as the plaintiff in this action in
the place of.the decedent plaintiff, Shasta Kramer. Defendant Ray Klein, Inc. filed Objections to
the F&R [36].
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The comi is generally required to

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the
court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are
addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to
review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to
accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
The F &R recommends that I grant Douglas Kramer's Motion to Substitute himself as the
plaintiff in this action in place of his deceased daughter, Shasta Kramer. The F &R's core
holding is that Rule 25(a)(l), which states that the "proper party for substitution is the decedent's
successor or representative," should be read flexibly and does not require f01mal probate
proceedings to designate a successor.
Defendant Ray Klein, Inc. disagrees and argues that Oregon law leaves the task of
determining who takes what interest in an estate like Shasta Kramer's solely to probate courts.
In my view, Defendant's argument conflates the exclusive role of the probate court with my role
under Rule 25. While the two tasks may have some overlap in a case like this one, they are
analytically distinct. The tasks left to the probate court do not divest me of the responsibility to
determine whether substitution is appropriate under federal procedural rules.

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R
[34] as my own opinion. Plaintiffs Motion to Substitute a Party [25] is GRANTED, and

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Douglas Kramer shall be substituted as the plaintiff in this action in place of the decedent
plaintiff, Shasta Kramer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED thisZl- day of January, 2019.

3 - OPINION AND ORDER