(SS) Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANE STEVEN JOHNSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01066-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a) SECURITY, 15 (ECF No. 10) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Shane Steven Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding through counsel, initiated this 18 action on July 7, 2021, seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying 19 Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. 20 (ECF No. 1.) 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice that Plaintiff died on August 16, 23 2021. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel served the motion on the Commissioner by U.S. Mail on 24 September 22, 2021. (ECF No. 9.) On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion 25 seeking to substitute Plaintiff’s mother, Tonya Arrasmith, as the plaintiff in this action pursuant to 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). (ECF No. 10.) On November 5, 2021, the Court entered an 27 order granting Ms. Arrasmith leave to file supplemental briefing addressing whether Plaintiff’s 28 1 claims are extinguished and whether Ms. Arrasmith is the proper party to be substituted. (ECF 2 No. 13.) On December 6, 2021, Ms. Arrasmith filed her supplemental brief, along with a proof of 3 service on the Commissioner by U.S. Mail . (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) 4 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 5 Rule 25(a)(1) provides: 6 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the 7 decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent 8 must be dismissed. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Therefore, in evaluation a motion under Rule 25(a)(1), the Court must 10 consider whether: 1) the motion is timely; 2) the claims pled are extinguished; and 3) the person 11 being substituted is a proper party. Maseda v. Saul, 2021 WL 2268871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 12 2021). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 First, the motion is timely. The statement noting Plaintiff’s death was served on the 15 Commissioner on September 22, 2021, and the motion was filed on October 1, 2021, which was 16 fewer than 90 days later. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) 17 Second, as to whether the claims pled are extinguished, Plaintiff’s complaint states that he 18 applied for both disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. (See ECF No. 1.) 19 Under the Social Security Act, certain survivors may be entitled to posthumous payments of 20 benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.503, 416.542(b). However, 21 supplemental security income payments may only be paid to an eligible surviving spouse. 22 Maseda, 2021 WL 2268871, at *1 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.542(b)). Here, Ms. Arrasmith’s 23 supplemental briefing concedes that Plaintiff was unmarried at the time of his death and only his 24 disability insurance benefits claim survives. (ECF No. 14 at 2-3.) Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for 25 supplemental security income is extinguished but his claim for disability insurance benefits 26 remains. 27 Third, the Court considers whether Ms. Arrasmith is the proper party to be substituted. 28 Rule 25(a)(1) requires that the person to be substituted is Plaintiff’s successor in interest or legal 1 | representative. See Mallonee v. Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1952) (“It is plain . . . that 2 | Rule 25(a)(1) applies only to the substitution of legal representatives. That is not only clear from 3 | its history; it is implicit in the wording of the provision and in the cases construing it.”) (footnote 4 | omitted). 5 Here, the motion and supplemental briefing represent that Plaintiff was unmarried and had 6 | no children at the time of his death and Ms. Arrasmith is Plaintiff's parent. (ECF Nos. 10, 14.) 7 | Thus, Ms. Arrasmith is the individual with the highest priority under 20 C.F.R. 404.503(b)(2), 8 | which provides for distribution of underpayments where an individual dies before receiving 9 | payment. Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Arrasmith is the proper party to be substituted for 10 | Plaintiff's disability insurance claim.' 11 In light of the foregoing, Ms. Arrasmith has established that substitution is appropriate 12 | under Rule 25(a)(1) as to Plaintiff's disability insurance benefits only. The Court will thus grant 13 | the motion for substitution as to Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and will deny 14 || the motion as to Plaintiff's supplemental security income claim. 15 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The motion to substitute Tonya Arrasmith as plaintiff in this action (ECF Nos. 10, 14) 18 is GRANTED IN PART as to Shane Steven Johnson’s claim for disability insurance 19 benefits and DENIED as to Shane Steven Johnson’s claim for supplemental security 20 income; and 21 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Tonya Arrasmith as a plaintiff on the docket. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 24, 2022 [sf Fahey □ 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 ! Because supplemental security income payments may only be paid to a surviving spouse as discussed above, Ms. 28 | Arrasmith is not a proper party for the Title XVI claim.