Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00428/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00428-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS SANCHEZ, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CITY OF FRESNO, ASHLEY SWEARENGIN, 

MARK SCOTT, BRUCE RUDD, GREG 

BARFIELD, JERRY DYER, PHILLIP 

WEATERHS, MALCOLM DOUGHERTY, and 

DOES 1-100, inclusive,

 Defendants.

LEAD CASE: 1:12-CV-00428-LJO-SKO

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

FILING RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

DECEASED PLAINTIFFS (Doc. 195)

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are current or former homeless residents of the City of 

Fresno (“City”) who allege that their personal property, including property necessary for survival, 

essential to health, and of personal and emotional value, was seized and immediately destroyed as part 

of the City’s efforts to clean up homeless encampments in Downtown Fresno in late 2011 and early 

2012. More than thirty similar cases arising out of these cleanup activities have been consolidated for 

pretrial purposes, with the above-captioned matter serving as the lead case. See Doc. 27.

Counsel informed the Court that two of the Plaintiffs, Reginald Gilliam and Juan Valenzuela 

(“Decedents”), passed away during the pendency of this action. Doc. 195 at ¶¶ 1-2. Counsel further 

represent that there have been no probate proceedings for and no one has identified themselves to 

counsel as an heir or representative of either Decedent. Finally, Counsel indicate that all parties have 

conferred and concluded that any claims of either Decedent were extinguished upon their deaths. 

Accordingly and in light of the fact that the parties have reached an overall settlement of this litigation, 

the parties request dismissal of Decedents’ claims without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Case 1:12-cv-00428-LJO-SKO Document 196 Filed 10/20/14 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

2

The parties have failed to justify sufficiently dismissal of Decedents’ claims. Absent from the 

request for dismissal is any mention of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1), which allows for the substitution of a 

deceased party if the claim is not extinguished by decedent’s death. Rule 25(a)(1) provides: 

Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If a party dies and the 

claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper 

party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the 

decedent's successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 

days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against 

the decedent must be dismissed.

The parties assert, without any explanation, that Decedents’ claims were extinguished upon their 

deaths. If all claims asserted by Decedents are indeed extinguished as a matter of law upon Decedents’ 

deaths, dismissal may be appropriate without application of the notice and waiting period provisions of 

Rule 25(a)(1). In contrast, if any claims may be maintained as survivor actions, certain obligations of 

notice apply, Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233–34 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that Rule 25 

establishes a procedure that protects those who have an interest in the litigation and the authority to act 

on behalf of the decedent), even where there is no estate and/or where no representative has come 

forward. See Gruenherg v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 2008 WL 2001253, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 7, 

2008) (recognizing that defendants who file notice of death for deceased plaintiff are “required to take 

on some burden in locating [p]laintiff's representative or successor.”). Accordingly, the parties are 

directed to file a supplemental brief explaining why Decedents’ claims are extinguished by their deaths

and/or a supplemental declaration detailing what efforts have been made, if any, to locate any successors 

to Decedents’ interests. Any such supplemental filing shall be filed on or before October 29, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00428-LJO-SKO Document 196 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 2