Ramirez v. Animal Health International, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIA MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:21-CV-00965-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY 13 v. (Doc. 20) 14 ANIMAL HEALTH INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Julia Martinez filed this action on April 20, 2021, in state court, alleging various 18 employment discrimination, labor code, and wrongful termination claims under California law. 19 (Doc. 1, Ex. A.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on June 17, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On 20 October 15, 2021, Ms. Martinez passed away. (See Doc. 20, Ex. A (Death Certificate).) A 21 Suggestion of Death was filed (Doc. 18) and served on Defendant on January 13, 2022, (Doc. 20, 22 Ex. B), and on decedent’s son, David Ramirez, on January 14, 2022 (id., Ex. C). 23 On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a motion to substitute David 24 Ramirez as the Plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 20.) On June 6, 2022, the undersigned ordered 25 supplemental briefing to address whether David Ramirez is an appropriate substitute given the 26 absence of information about decedent’s estate or the existence of other potential beneficiaries 27 thereto. (Doc. 24.) On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplement asking to substitute in decedent’s 28 three children—David Ramirez, Celia Ramirez, and Theodore Edward Sierra Jr.—as Plaintiffs. 1 (Doc. 25.) An opportunity was afforded for the filing of objections to the modified request. (Doc. 2 26.) On July 13, 2022, Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to the substitutions. 3 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides: 5 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution 6 may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after 7 service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 8 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). In evaluating a Rule 25(a)(1) motion, the Court must consider whether: 10 (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled are extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted 11 is the proper party. Maseda v. Saul, 1:20-cv-01657 JLT, 2021 WL 2268871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 12 3, 2021). 13 This motion is timely, as it was filed within 90 days of the Suggestion of Death. “The 14 question of whether an action survives the death of a party must be determined by looking 15 towards the law, state or federal, under which the cause of action arose.” Stribling v. Lucero, No. 16 2:16-CV-01438-TLN-JDP, 2021 WL 516849, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021). The Complaint 17 pleads the seven claims under California Government Code § 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”): (1) 18 disability discrimination, (2) gender (sex) discrimination, (3) age discrimination, (4) failure to 19 prevent discrimination, (5) failure to accommodate; (6) failure to engage in interactive process; 20 and (7) retaliation. (See generally Doc. 1.) The complaint also alleges: (8) failure to reimburse 21 business expenses in violation of California Labor Code § 2802; (9) violation of California Labor 22 Code § 1102.5; and (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Id.) These claims are 23 not extinguished by Plaintiff’s death. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.20 (“Except as otherwise 24 provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s 25 death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.”). 26 Where, as is the case here, a suit is based on diversity jurisdiction, “state law determines 27 who is a ‘proper party’ for the purposes of Rule 25(a)(1).” Bustillos v. N.H. Ball Bearings, Inc., 28 No. CV 18-3017 PSG (JPRx), 2018 WL 6333680, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018). Under 1 | California law, the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, the decedent’s “successor in 2 | interest” is the proper party to be substituted. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.31. A decedent’s 3 || “successor in interest” is defined as “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in 4 | interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject 5 | of acause of action.” Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 377.11. Relatedly, the term “beneficiary of the 6 | decedent’s estate” in § 377.11 is defined as follows: 7 (a) If the decedent died leaving a will, the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular 8 item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under the 9 decedent’s will. (b) If the decedent died without leaving a will, the sole person or all 10 of the persons who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under 11 Sections 6401 and 6402 of the Probate Code or, if the law of a sister state or foreign nation governs succession to the cause of action or 12 particular item of property, under the law of the sister state or foreign nation. 13 14 | Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 377.10. The record now reflects that decedent died without leaving a will 15 | and has three surviving children. (See Doc. 25 & Attachments.) Therefore, it is appropriate to find 16 | that her three children are the successors in interest to the causes of action in this case and 17 | relatedly that they are the proper parties to be substituted in as Plaintiffs. Accordingly, all the 18 | requirements of Rule 25(a)(1) are satisfied. 19 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 For the reasons set forth above: 21 (1) The motion to substitute (Doc. 20 as modified by Doc. 25) is GRANTED. 22 (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute David Ramirez, Celia Ramirez, and 23 Theodore Edward Sierra Jr., as Plaintiffs in place of Julia Martinez. 24 45 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ July 15, 2022 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28