Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05231/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05231-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. KETROSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05231-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SUBSTITUTE; DISMISSING FIRST, 

THIRD, AND FIFTH CAUSES OF 

ACTION; DIRECTIONS TO MOVANT

Before the Court is Diedre Kellog Ketroser’s (“Ms. Kellogg Ketroser”) “Motion to 

Substitute,” filed February 7, 2020. Defendants have filed opposition, to which Ms. 

Kellogg Ketroser has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of 

and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matters appropriate for 

determination on the written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 

20, 2020, and rules as follows:

On August 21, 2019, plaintiff David B. Ketroser (“Dr. Ketroser”) filed a complaint

consisting of five causes of action. On November 7, 2019, Dr. Ketroser passed away, 

and on November 25, 2019, a statement noting his death was filed. Thereafter, on 

February 7, 2020, Ms. Kellogg Ketroser, Dr. Ketroser’s widow and the personal 

representative of his estate, filed the instant motion, whereby she seeks an order 

substituting herself as plaintiff in the Second Cause of Action, which asserts a claim for 

damages under the California Disabled Persons Act, and the Fourth Cause of Action, 

which asserts a claim for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.1 

1 Ms. Kellogg Ketroser does not seek to substitute as to the First, Third, and Fifth 

Case 3:19-cv-05231-MMC Document 23 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f a party dies and the 

claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Here, Dr. Ketroser’s Second and Fourth Causes of Action were not 

extinguished by his death, see Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 698 Fed. Appx. 883, 885 

(9th Cir. 2017) (holding claim for statutory damages was not extinguished by plaintiff’s 

death), and Ms. Kellogg Ketroser, the “personal representative of David B. Ketroser’s

estate as named in his will” and as authorized by a Minnesota probate court (see Kellogg 

Ketroser Decl. ¶ 3; Kellogg Ketroser Decl. Ex. B), is a proper party for substitution under 

Rule 25, see Mallonee v. Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1952) (holding Rule 25(a)(1) 

applies to substitution of “legal representatives”). Accordingly, Ms. Kellogg Ketroser’s 

motion to substitute as plaintiff will be granted, and said movant will be directed to file an 

amended complaint in which she is substituted as plaintiff in the Second and Fourth 

Causes of Action. 

As to the remaining causes of action, it is undisputed that those claims were

extinguished upon Dr. Ketroser’s death. See Kennerly v. United States, 721 F.2d 1252, 

1260 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding death of plaintiff renders claim for injunctive relief moot). 

Accordingly, the First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action will be dismissed.

Lastly, defendants, noting the First Cause of Action, Dr. Ketroser’s sole federal 

claim, has been extinguished, argue the Court should decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law claims and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), dismiss the 

entirety of the instant action in favor of its proceeding in state court. In response, Ms. 

Kellogg Ketroser states that if she is allowed to substitute as plaintiff, she will move to file 

an amended complaint asserting her own federal claim based on essentially the same 

circumstances as those giving rise to Dr. Ketroser’s claims. In light of Ms. Kellogg 

Ketroser’s anticipated motion, the Court will defer deciding whether it should retain 

jurisdiction over the currently pending state law claims. 

Causes of Action, which seek only injunctive relief. 

Case 3:19-cv-05231-MMC Document 23 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Ms. Kellogg Ketroser’s motion to substitute as plaintiff is hereby GRANTED. No 

later than March 23, 2020, Ms. Kellogg Ketroser shall file an amended complaint 

reflecting said substitution and making no other changes. 

2. The First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED as moot.

3. If Ms. Kellogg Ketroser elects to bring her own claims, she shall, after filing the 

above-referenced amended complaint and no later than April 2, 2020, move to file an 

amended complaint in which she asserts those additional causes of action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05231-MMC Document 23 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 3