Anderson v. Dooley ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRUCE ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05120-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DECEASED PLAINTIFF 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 79 10 DIANA DOOLEY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the motion filed by Defendant Mark Ghaly’s (“Defendant”), in 14 his official capacity as Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, to dismiss 15 deceased plaintiff John Wilson (“Wilson”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), 16 (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 79), for which briefing is complete. Dkt. No. 85 (“Opp.”); Dkt. No. 86 17 (“Reply”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 18 I. BACKGROUND1 19 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs Bruce Anderson, Robert Austin, John Wilson 20 (“Wilson”), and California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (“CANHR,” and collectively, 21 “Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 35 (“FAC”). The FAC alleged that 22 Wilson “passed away while this case was on appeal” before the Ninth Circuit. Id. ¶ 16. After 23 service of the FAC, Defendant propounded discovery requests on Plaintiffs, specifically seeking 24 the identity of the person or persons representing the legal interests of Wilson after his passing. 25 Dkt No. 79-1 (“Barca Decl.) at ¶ 3. Plaintiffs objected to these requests and did not provide 26 27 1 responsive documents or information. Id.2 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 Rule 25(a)(1) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the 4 court may order substitution of the proper party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). “Whether an action 5 survives depends on the substance of the cause of the action, not on the forms of proceeding to 6 enforce it.” Gerling v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 151 U.S. 673, 692 (1894). Generally, the law of the 7 forum state determines whether a § 1983 action survives or is extinguished upon the death of a 8 party. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 592 (1978). In California, “a 9 cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives 10 subject to the applicable limitations period.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.20(a). The death of 11 Wilson accordingly did not automatically extinguish his declaratory relief and § 1983 claims. 12 However, Defendant, citing LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 13 943, 953 (9th Cir. 2020), contends that a deceased plaintiff “cannot avail himself of the 14 jurisdiction of the federal courts” because “[t]here is no plaintiff with standing, if there is no 15 plaintiff.” Mot. at 4. Therefore, Defendant contends that because Wilson is deceased, he lacked 16 standing to file or pursue the claims in the FAC and lacks Article III standing to litigate. Id.; see 17 also LN Mgmt., 957 F.3d at 955 (“We therefore join our sister circuits in holding that a party 18 cannot maintain a suit on behalf of, or against, or join, a dead person, or in any other way make a 19 dead person (in that person’s own right, and not through a properly-represented estate or 20 successor) party to a federal lawsuit.”). 21 The Ninth Circuit, while addressing only whether a deceased plaintiff can file an action, 22 confirmed that claims must be “maintained” by a live person with specific, legally defined ties to 23 the decedent. Id. Although it is clear that Wilson originally had standing to participate in this 24 action, because Wilson predeceased the filing of the FAC, he lacked standing to bring or pursue 25 26 2 Plaintiffs claim that they previously inform Defendant about Wilson’s passing. See Declaration of Gunnar K. Martz (Dkt. No. 85-1, “Martz Decl.”) Ex. 1 at 2 (August 22, 2019 letter indicating 27 that “John Wilson [] died after we filed this case”); see also id. Ex. 2 at 3 (September 3, 2019 1 the claims in in the current operative pleading (the FAC) in this matter. Without Article III 2 standing, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Wilson and, accordingly, he must be dismissed from 3 || this litigation. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1220 (9th Cir. 2014) (“when a plaintiff files an 4 amended complaint, [t]he amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated 5 thereafter as non-existent”); Cetacean Com. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2004).? 6 Wl. CONCLUSION 7 Accordingly, because Wilson lacks standing to pursue the claims pending in this action 8 and the Court lacks jurisdiction over Wilson, the Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to 9 dismiss Wilson from the action. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 || Dated: 11/12/2020 Mayer 5 4 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 Because the Court finds that Wilson does not have standing to pursue the claims in the FAC, the 2g || Court need not address Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding substitution or whether a statement noting death has been served pursuant to Rule 25.