(SS) Maseda v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANNETTE SUE MASEDA, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01657 JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 13 v. ) (Doc. 13) 14 ANDREW SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Annette Sue Maseda filed this action for judicial review of an administrative decision denying 18 her application for Social Security benefits. (See Doc. 1.) Nicole Schmidt seeks to substitute as 19 plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 13.) For the following 20 reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on November 20, 2020. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff 23 asserted she is disabled, and asserts the findings by the Commissioner to deny benefits were “not 24 supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks to 25 have the Court reverse the administrative decision and find she is entitled to benefits, or remand the 26 action for further proceedings. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff died on March 24, 2021, while this action was pending. (Doc. 13 at 1.) Her daughter, 28 Nicole Schmidt, now seeks substitution as the plaintiff. (Id. at 1-2.) 1 II. Legal Standard 2 Rule 25(a)(1) governs the issue of substitution, and provides that: “If a party dies and the 3 claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for 4 substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative. If the motion 5 is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the 6 decedent must be dismissed.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1). Therefore, in deciding a motion to substitute 7 under Rule 25(a)(1), the Court must consider whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled are 8 extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper party. See id. If the requirements of 9 Rule 25(a) (1) are met, “[t]he substituted party steps into the same position as [the] original party.” 10 Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 III. Discussion and Analysis 12 A. Timeliness 13 The motion now pending before the Court was filed in a timely manner because Plaintiff filed 14 the request for substitution within 90 days of the death of Annette Sue Maseda. 15 B. Whether the claims are extinguished 16 Substitution is limited to claims that are not extinguished by death of a party. The Regulations 17 also provide that certain survivors may be entitled to posthumous payments of benefits. See 42 U.S.C, 18 § 1383(b)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.542(b). Because the Social Security Act expressly provides for 19 benefits to be paid to survivors in the event she died before collecting benefits owed, Plaintiff’s claims 20 were not necessarily extinguished upon her death.1 21 C. Designation of a “proper party” 22 Rule 25(a)(1) requires evidence that Nicol Schmidt is a successor in interest or legal 23 representative of Annette Sue Maseda. See Hilao, 103 F.3d at 766 (applying Rule 25(a)(1) to the legal 24 representatives of the deceased’s estate). The Ninth Circuit explained: “It is plain ... that Rule 25(a)(1) 25 26 1 Notably, the complaint indicates that Plaintiff applied for both disability insurance benefits and supplemental 27 security income. (Doc. 1 at 1, ¶1.) However, SSI payments may only be paid to an eligible surviving spouse and not to an estate. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.542(b). Plaintiff does not distinguish address the distinction in benefits in filing the motion 28 now before the Court. See Timothy F. v. Saul, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251827 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 5, 2020) (addressing 1 applies only to the substitution of legal representatives. That is not only clear from its history; it is 2 implicit in the wording of the provision and in the cases construing it.” Mallonee v. Fahey, 200 F.2d 3 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1952) (footnote omitted). 4 The moving party reports that “Annette Sue Maseda was unmarried at the time of her death, 5 and Nicole Schmidt is [the] Child of Annette Sue Maseda.” (Doc. 13 at 1, emphasis omitted.) 6 However, there is no evidence in support of this assertion. There is no declaratory evidence before the 7 Court to support a conclusion that no other person has a superior right than Nicole Schmidt, or that she 8 is the legal representative of the estate. Without such evidence, the Court is unable to determine 9 whether Ms. Schmidt is a proper party to be substituted in this action. 10 IV. Conclusion and Order 11 Plaintiff fails to present evidence that establishes that the requirements of Rule 25(a) (1) are 12 satisfied. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: the motion to substitute Nicole Schmidt as Plaintiff 13 (Doc. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 14, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28