Ruddell v. Eli Lilly & Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATRYNA WOLFF, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03004-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 In its October 25, 2019 order, the court explained that any nonparty successor or 18 representative of deceased plaintiff Donald William Ruddell may move for substitution under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) within 90 days of counsel’s October 3, 2019 filing. ECF 20 No. 76. The court further warned that “[i]f the 90-day period expires without substitution . . ., the 21 court may then dismiss the matter under Rule 25(a).” Id. at 2. 22 As of this order, the 90-day motion period has elapsed without a substitution 23 request. Accordingly, under the authority of Rule 25(a), deceased plaintiff Donald William 24 Ruddell is dismissed without prejudice from this action. See Gruenberg v. Maricopa Cty. 25 Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 06-0397-PHX-SMM (DKD), 2008 WL 2001253, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 7, 26 2008) (dismissing action without prejudice under Rule 25(a) where no successor or representative 27 could be located and dismissal did not constitute adjudication on the merits); Mahon v. Morton 28 Golf, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-02972-TLN-EFB, 2019 WL 4318582, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) 1 | (noting the court has discretion under Rule 25 to dismiss with or without prejudice). Moreover, 2 | because Ruddell was the last remaining plaintiff to this action, the Clerk of Court is directed to 3 | close this action in its entirety. See ECF No. 27 (order transferring severed plaintiffs to the 4 | Southern District of Indiana); ECF No. 57 (stipulation dismissing plaintiff Katryna Wolff 5 | pursuant to Rule 41(a)()(A)G). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: February 20, 2020. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28