Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CHARLES H. LEWIS and JANE W.

LEWIS,

NO. CIV. S-03-2646 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs and 

counter-defendants,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO SUBTITUTE 

PARTIES

ROBERT D. RUSSELL; et al., 

Defendants and

cross-defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS, 

AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS.

 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs and counter-defendants Charles H. Lewis and

Jane W. Lewis (“the Lewises”) brought this action under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., for recovery of costs

incurred removing hazardous substances from real property. 

Cross-defendants and cross-claimants Potter-Taylor & Company,

Potter, Long, Adams & Taylore, Ltd., Davis Center, Potter-Taylor,

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 196 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

This action is currently stayed pursuant to this 1

court’s order of April 14, 2005. However, on May 3, 2007, the

court signed a stipulation by the parties lifting the stay for

the limited purpose of bringing this motion.

2

Inc., and Potter Taylor & Scurfield, Inc. (together “PotterTaylor”) move this court to substitute Irene Russell in place of

defendant and cross-defendant Robert Russell, now deceased,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1).1

Robert Russell operated a dry cleaning store at the

Davis Center, in Davis, California, from 1964 to 1971. During

his occupancy of the property, and concordant with his operation

of the store, Mr. Russell used the chemical perchloroethylene

(PCE). Several decades later, environmental investigation of the

property revealed PCE contamination in surrounding soil and

groundwater. Mr. Russell was named as one of the responsible

parties by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to

clean up the site. On December 9, 2003, the Lewises (also dry

cleaner operators at Davis Center) brought this action against a

variety of defendants, including Robert Russell, seeking

contribution for the costs of clean-up of the contamination. 

Several cross-claims have also been filed against Mr. Russell. 

On January 30, 2007, Mr. Russell’s attorney filed a

Statement of Death, wherein his wife Irene Russell suggested upon

the record, pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), the death of her husband,

Mr. Russell. Potter-Taylor now seeks to substitute Irene

Russell, the successor-in-interest to Mr. Russell, in place of

Mr. Russell.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 provides that “[i]f

a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 196 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

may order substitution of the proper parties” so that the action

may proceed against the proper successor in interest. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 25(a)(1); Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir.

1993). CERCLA does not preempt state laws regarding an

individual’s capacity to be sued. Levin Metals Corp. v.

Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 817 F.2d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1987).

Under California law, “a cause of action for or against a person

is not lost by reason of the person’s death,” accordingly the

claims against Russell survive him. Cal. Code Civ. P. §

377.20(a); see also Levin, 817 F.2d at 1451. 

The court would have misgivings about substituting Mr.

Russell’s widow personally, rather than his estate, as defendant. 

However, although Irene Russell filed an Opposition to Motion for

Substitution of Parties, she revealed therein that she did not

oppose her substitution for Robert Russell. (Opp’n to Mot. for

Substitution 1.) Instead, she objected only to certain factual

assertions made in the motion, relating to her operation (or nonoperation) of the dry cleaning store with Mr. Russell. (Id. 1-

2.) As the factual assertions made by Potter-Taylor have no

bearing on this motion, nor are they evidence in the case merely

by their inclusion in the motion, Irene Russell’s efforts to

“correct” those assertions are unnecessary.

Because Irene Russell concedes she is his successor-ininterest and is the proper individual to be substituted in his

place in this action (Opp’n to Mot. for Substitution of Parties

1.), the court will substitute her in place of Robert Russell as

defendant and cross-defendant in this action.

///

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 196 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that third-party defendants’

motion for substitution of parties be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED. Irene Russell is hereby substituted for Robert Russell

in all complaints and cross-complaints currently pending against

Robert Russell in the instant action.

DATED: August 7, 2007

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 196 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 4