Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs seek to substitute Chris Silva as a successor in interest to Salvador Silva for Plaintiff 

Salvador Silva pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ca. Code Civ. Proc. 

§337.32. (Doc. 106.) In support of their motion, Plaintiffs report that Chris Silva is the son of 

Salvador Silva and “[n]o other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to 

be substituted for Salvador Silva in this pending action or proceeding. (Doc. 106 at 4-5, citing Silva 

Decl. ¶ 5.) Under California’s Civil Code section 377.11, a “‘decedent's successor in interest’ means 

the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action 

or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.”

Notably, Merri Silva is the surviving spouse of Salvador Silva, and given she is the sole heir to 

the community property of the marriage and one of the heirs to Mr. Silva’s separate property, 

seemingly, she has a superior right to prosecute the action that Mr. Silva’s son. Further, from 

TARA GARLICK, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01051 - LJO - JLT

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 110 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 2
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

reviewing the record it is not clear whether Judy Silva, the paternal aunt of the minor plaintiffs, has the 

same or inferior interest as Chris Silva as a successor in interest. 

In addition, Plaintiffs did not brief why they believe Chris Silva has a superior interest. 

Consequently, the Court is unable to determine that Chris Silva is the proper party to be substituted for 

Mr. Silva, as required by Rule 25 without further information.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs SHALL provide supplemental briefing 

within seven days of the date of service of this order explaining why Chris Silva has the superior right 

to maintain this action and should be substituted for Mr. Silva.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 110 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 2