Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02769/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02769-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark E. Grant, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, Department of

Transportation (ADOT), et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2769-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Currently pending before the court are four defense motions to

dismiss brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (docs. 14, 19,

20 and 22). Since the filing of these motions, however, on June

27, 2007, the defendant State of Arizona filed and served a “Notice

of Suggestion of Death[,]” advising the court that on June 8, 2007,

plaintiff Mark Grant died. Doc. 43. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 governs substitution of parties in the

event, among other things, of death. Subsection (a)(1) of that

Rule provides in relevant part that “[u]nless the motion for

substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is

Case 2:06-cv-02769-RCB Document 44 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of

the death as provided herein for the service of the motion, the

action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 25(a)(1) (emphasis added). Although, as noted above, a notice

of suggestion of plaintiff’s death was filed with the court on June

27, 2007, no motion for substitution of plaintiff’s legal

representative was ever made. Thus, because such a motion was not

made, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) and the case law

construing it, the court sua sponte dismisses this action. See

Evans v. Alameida, 2006 WL 618298, at 81 n.1 (E.D. Ca. March 10,

2006) (citing Weil v. Investment/Indicators, Research and

Management, Inc., 647 F.2d 18, 21 n.5 (9th Cir. 1981), adopted in

full, 2006 WL 1774875 (E.D. Ca. June 26, 2006); see also Pauli v.

Bell, 92 B.R. 911, 912 (Bankr. E.D. Ca. 1988) (creditor’s receipt

of repeated suggestions of debtor’s death triggered Rule 25(a)(1)’s

90 day substitution period, and failure to substitute within that

90 day period warranted dismissal of adversary proceeding). This

dismissal renders moot defendants’ motions to dismiss on the

alternative basis of failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed and the Clerk is

directed to enter judgment for the defendant and terminate this

action.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.

copies to all counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-02769-RCB Document 44 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2