Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051-14/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

Due to the recent death of Salvador Silva, Chris Silva seeks to substitute as the successor in 

interest to the decedent. (Doc. 106.) Defendants do not oppose the motion. (Docs. 108, 109.) 

The Court has reviewed the motion and supporting documents and finds the matter suitable for 

decision without oral argument. According, the matter is taken under submission pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(g). Because Plaintiffs present evidence that Chris Silva is the successor in interest of 

Salvador Silva, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiffs initiated this action, alleging Defendants are responsible for the wrongful death of 

David Silva, who was the boyfriend of Plaintiff Tara Garlick, the father of the minor plaintiffs, and the 

son of Plaintiffs Merri and Salvador Silva. (See generally Docs. 2, 78.) Plaintiffs assert eleven causes 

of action in the Second Amended Complaint: (1) excessive force in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; (2) “integral participation” in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) failure to intervene 

TARA GARLICK, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE 

CHRIS SILVA AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO 

PLAINTIFF SALVADOR SILVA

(Doc. 106)

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 113 Filed 07/06/15 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

in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (4) denial of medical care in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; (5) violation of the substantive due process rights of Salvador Silva, Merri Silva, Tara 

Garlick, the minor Plaintiffs, and David Silva; (6) municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (7) 

failure to train; (8) unconstitutional customs or policies; (9) battery; (10) negligence; and (11) a 

violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (See generally Doc. 78.)

Plaintiffs report that “Salvador Silva died on April 29, 2015 in the County of Kern, California, 

while this lawsuit was pending.” (Doc. 106 at 4.) Therefore, Plaintiffs seek to substitute Chris Silva, 

the son of Salvador Silva, as his successor in interest in this action. (Id.)

II. Legal Standard

Rule 25(a)(1) governs the issue of substitution, and provides that:

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. 25(a)(1). Therefore, in deciding a motion to substitute under Rule 25(a)(1), 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. See id. If the requirements of Rule 25(a) (1) are met, “[t]he 

substituted party steps into the same position as [the] original party.” Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 

F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. Discussion and Analysis

A. The motion is filed timely

The motion at issue was filed within 90 days of Salvador Silva’s death and it is, therefore,

timely. 

B. The claims are not extinguished

Generally, the law of the forum state determines whether a section 1983 action survives or is 

extinguished upon the death of a party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 

592 (1978). Thus, the law of California governs this action, and under California law “a cause of action 

for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable 

limitations period.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.20(a). Consequently, the Court finds that the claims of 

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 113 Filed 07/06/15 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

Salvador Silva raised under 42 U.S.C. §1983 were not extinguished upon his death. 

C. Designation of a “proper party”

Rule 25(a)(1) requires evidence that Chris Silva is a successor in interest or legal representative

of Salvador Silva. See Hilao, 103 F.3d at 766 (applying Rule 25(a)(1) to the legal representatives of 

the deceased’s estate). The Ninth Circuit explained: “It is plain ... that Rule 25(a)(1) applies only to 

the substitution of legal representatives. That is not only clear from its history; it is implicit in the 

wording of the provision and in the cases construing it.” Mallonee v. Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919 (9th 

Cir. 1952) (footnote omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs report that Salvador Silva was no longer married to Merri Silva, and died 

without a surviving spouse. (Doc. 111 at 3.) Likewise, despite the previous representations that Judy 

Silva is the paternal aunt of the minor Plaintiffs (Doc. 16 at 3), as it turns out, she is the surviving 

sister of Salvador Silva and is, therefore, the children’s great aunt. (Doc. 111-1 at 1-2) In any event, 

because there was no surviving spouse, Salvador Silva’s only heir is his son, Chris Silva. (Id., citing 

Cal. Prob. Code § 6402). Therefore, Plaintiffs assert Chris Silva is the “best party to be substituted” 

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; Doc. 111 at 4.) In light of 

the declaratory evidence presented by Plaintiffs, the Court finds Chris Silva is the proper substituted 

party. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiffs have carried their burden to establish that the requirements of Rule 25(a) (1) are 

satisfied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to substitute (Doc. 106) is GRANTED; and

2. Chris Silva is SUBSTITUTED for Plaintiff Salvador Silva.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 113 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 3