Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03025/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03025-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441pr Petition for Removal

---

1

16cv3025-MMA (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DYRAL EATON, FRANK EATON, SR., 

and FLORENCE MCGEE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv3025-MMA (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 25

[Doc. No. 21]

Plaintiffs Dyral Eaton, Frank Eaton, Sr., and Florence McGee commenced this 

action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and Alabama state law claims for invasion of 

privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, negligent and wanton hiring and supervision, and 

mental anguish and emotional distress. Doc. No. 1-1. On December 11, 2018, counsel 

for Plaintiffs filed a statement noting the death of Plaintiff McGee. In re: Midland Credit 

Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., No. 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD), Doc. No. 

647. Plaintiffs now move to substitute Dyral Eaton, “as Successor in Interest to Plaintiff 

Florence McGee[.]” Doc. No. 21 at 1. The motion is unopposed. See Docket.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the 

claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion 

Case 3:16-cv-03025-MMA-MDD Document 23 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv3025-MMA (MDD)

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

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.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 25(a)(1). Thus, the Court must consider whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the 

claims pled are extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper party. Veliz 

v. Cintas Corp., No. C 03-1180 RS, 2008 WL 2811171, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2008).

The motion to substitute is timely. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the notice suggesting 

Plaintiff McGee’s death on December 11, 2018, served this notice on the substitute on 

April 29, 2019 when Plaintiff McGee’s Last Will and Testament was found. See Doc. 

No. 21 at 1; see also In re: Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 

No. 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD), Doc. No. 647. 

Additionally, the claims pleaded are not extinguished. Decedent asserted claims 

under the TCPA and FDCPA. See Doc. No. 1-1. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that 

claims under the FDCPA survive the plaintiff. Cruz Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991, 

996 (9th Cir. 2012) (issuing an order regarding the FDCPA after plaintiff was 

substituted). Also, TCPA claims seeking monetary damages do not expire upon the 

plaintiff’s death. See Jewett v. Bishop, White Marshall & Weibel, P.S., No. CV 12-10142 

PSG (MRWx), 2013 WL 6818245, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013) (finding that “the 

claims pleaded are not extinguished” and permitting substitution by sole distribute of 

decedent’s estate in action asserting claims under the FRCPA, RFDCPA, and TCPA). 

Moreover, Alabama state law tort claims do not expire upon a plaintiff’s death. See, e.g., 

Ala. Code § 6-5-462 (1975) (“In all proceedings not of an equitable nature, all claims 

upon which an action has been filed and all claims upon which no action has been filed 

on a contract, express or implied, and all personal claims upon which an action has been 

filed, except for injuries to the reputation, survive in favor of and against personal 

representatives[.]”); see also Bobo v. Agco Corp., 981 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1133-34 n.6 

(N.D. Ala. 2013).

Case 3:16-cv-03025-MMA-MDD Document 23 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv3025-MMA (MDD)

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

Finally, Dyral Eaton is a proper party for substitution. Rule 25(a)(1) requires that 

Plaintiff provide evidence that Dyral Eaton is decedent’s successor in interest or legal 

representative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ counsel attached Plaintiff McGee’s 

Last Will and Testament, which lists Dyral Eaton as the sole beneficiary and personal 

representative. Doc. No. 21 at 5-6.

Accordingly, Dyral Eaton has met the requirements of Rule 25(a) and the Court 

GRANTS the unopposed motion for substitution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2019

Case 3:16-cv-03025-MMA-MDD Document 23 Filed 05/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3