Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00419/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00419-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EMMA PRASSENOS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00419-KD-C

)

E.I. DU PONT DE MOURS AND CO., et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the suggestion of death of Plaintiff Emma Prassenos pursuant 

to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 55). 

Rule 25(a)(1) provides as follows: 

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. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 25(a)(1). Under the Rule, serving a “statement noting the death”, i.e., a suggestion of 

death, triggers a ninety (90) day period during which a motion for substitution should be filed. The Rule 

does not specifically identify who has authority to serve the statement, but does state that a motion for 

substitution may be made by a party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. At least one district 

court has interpreted this Rule to render a suggestion of death as ineffective unless it was filed and served 

by a party or a successor or representative of the decedent, and not effective if filed by the deceased 

plaintiff’s counsel. The district court explained as follows: 

The statement of death filed by Plaintiff's counsel was not filed on the record by one 

having authority to do so. At the time it was filed Plaintiff's counsel represented the 

decedent Arthur Schmidt and had not yet been retained by Dennis Schmidt the personal 

representative.

Filing a suggestion of death on the record has a very narrow role-it commences the 90 

day period within which a motion for substitution must be filed. [ ] As such, it serves the 

adversarial function of expediting the substitution of deceased parties. “In practice, it is 

not unusual for a defendant to suggest death upon the record to impose upon the 

plaintiff's side the obligation to move for the substitution of a party, as a tactical 

maneuver of an adversary premised upon expediting the action or getting it dismissed.” [ 

] On the other hand, it would be highly unusual for a representative of a deceased 

Case 1:13-cv-00419-KD-C Document 58 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 2
2

plaintiff to file a suggestion of death since doing so is not a prerequisite to filing a motion 

for substitution and would otherwise be contrary to the interests of the deceased party's 

estate. [ ] 

Accordingly, because the act of filing a statement of death on the record has the potential 

to have a dispositive impact on the underlying litigation, only statements of death filed by 

persons acting with authority should be given effect under Rule 25(a).

While Rule 25(a) does not explicitly specify who may properly serve the suggestion of 

death, courts have construed the rule so as to allow the suggestion to be filed by any of 

the same persons who are permitted to move for substitution. [ ] Thus, a suggestion of 

death is ineffective under Rule 25(a) unless it is filed by either a party, or by a 

representative of the deceased party. [ ]

Schmidt v. Merrill Lynch Trust Co., 2008 WL 2694891, *2 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 30, 2008) (footnotes omitted) 

(noting 3B Moore’s Federal Practice § 25.13[1]). 

Charles J. Potts and Robert J. Winicki filed the suggestion of death as counsel for plaintiff 

Prassenos. Counsel did not indicate whether they have been retained by a successor or representative of 

Prasenos, the deceased party. Rather, counsel stated only that “[i]t is anticipated that an administrative 

decedent’s Estate will be opened in an appropriate jurisdiction on behalf of Ms. Prassenos’ heirs, her two 

sons, at which time said Estate will move to be substituted for that of the named Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 

25[.]” (Doc. 55 at 1). In sum, counsel has not filed a motion for substitution on behalf of a successor or 

representative. Because the Court is uncertain as to whether Potts and/or Winicki, as counsel for 

Prassenos, have authority to file and serve1 the suggestion of death (Doc. 55), it is STRICKEN. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of October 2014. 

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 1

 Under Rule 25(a)(3), service of a statement noting death must be served upon a party pursuant to Rule 5 

and on non-parties such as the decedent’s successor or representative pursuant to Rule 4. The certificate of service 

on the suggestion of death does not indicate such service on non-parties. (Doc. 55 at 2). Hence, there is nothing 

before the Court to indicate whether counsel served the suggestion of death upon Prassenos’

successor/representative (or anticipated successor/representative such as her two sons).

Case 1:13-cv-00419-KD-C Document 58 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 2