Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01359/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01359-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN E. GRANDBOUCHE; JOHN VOSS, ) 

Personal Representative of the Estate ) 

of John Grandbouche, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LARRY LOVELL; KENNETH BATSON; ) 

VERNON PIXLEY; KATHLEEN BUDD; ALAN ) 

DOUGAN; DAVE BLACK; TIM FORTUNE; NICK ) 

DIFALCO; JOHN OTTINGER; BOB ELY, ) 

all special agents for the Internal ) 

Revenue Service; STEVE SIMMER; ) 

BOB GLENN, Inspectors for the Internal ) 

Revenue Service; LARRY HYATT, Chief of ) 

Internal Revenue Service, Criminal ) 

Investigation Division, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

FILED 

United State5 Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 6 1990 

APPEALS 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1359 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 80-C-1734) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Jennifer A. Greene and William A. Cohan, Cohan & Greene, Denver, 

Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Shirley D. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Gary R. Allen, 

Kenneth L. Greene, and Howard M. Soloman, Tax Division, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Michael J. Norton, United States 

Attorney, Denver, Colorado, of Counsel), for Defendants-Appellees. 

Appellate Case: 89-1359 Document: 01019708250 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 1 
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order dismissing this 

action for failure to file a timely 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(l). 1 

motion for substitution 

The district court 

initially dismissed this action when plaintiff Grandbouche failed 

to comply with a discovery order. See Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 

F.2d 1463, 1464 (lOth Cir. 1987). While the appeal of that 

decision was before this court, plaintiff Grandbouche died. See 

id. at 1465. This court, after requesting that the parties file 

supplemental briefs addressing the effect of the death of 

plaintiff Grandbouche on the instant action, ultimately determined 

that the action survived plaintiff's death, vacated the district 

court's order of dismissal, and remanded the action to the 

district court. Id. at 1465, 1467. 

On September 5, 1989, defendants filed with the district 

court a motion to dismiss this action for failure to file a timely 

motion to substitute a proper party for the deceased plaintiff. 

Immediately thereafter the personal representative of decedent's 

estate filed a motion to substitute himself as a party-plaintiff 

1 After exam~n~ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1359 Document: 01019708250 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 2 
in this action. The district court denied the motion for 

substitution and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiffs appeal. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(l) provides that 

[i]f a party dies and the claim is not thereby 

extinguished, the court may order substitution of the 

proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made 

by any party or by the successors or representatives of 

the deceased party and, together with the notice of 

hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in 

Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner 

provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons, and may 

be served in any judicial district. Unless the motion 

for substitution is made not later than 90 days after 

the death is suggested upon the record by service of a 

statement of the fact of the death as provided herein 

for the service of the motion, the action shall be 

dismissed as to the deceased party. 

Prior to its amendment in 1963, Rule 25(a)(l) required a court to 

dismiss an action if no motion for substitution had been filed 

within two years of the death of a party. See, ~, Rende v. 

Kay, 415 F.2d 983, 984 (D.C. Cir. 1969). In order to alleviate 

the inequities caused by the inflexibility of this rule, see id. 

at 984, Rule 25(a)(l) was amended to require a motion for 

substitution to be filed within ninety days from the time a 

suggestion of death is filed in the district court and properly 

served. See United States v. Miller Bros. Constr. Co., 505 F.2d 

1031, 1034-35 (lOth Cir. 1974); see also 7C Wright & Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1955 (2d ed. 1986). 

Defendants assert that a sufficient suggestion of death was 

made under Rule 25(a)(1) in the appellate proceedings addressing 

the effect of plaintiff's death on this action. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1359 Document: 01019708250 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 3 
The suggestion of the decedent's death was spread on the 

record approximately two years earlier by this Court's 

order requiring supplemental briefs, the supplemental 

brief of the defendants, this Court:s decision in 

Grandbouche I, [825 F.2d 1463], and the docket entry 

thereof. Each of these documents was entered in the 

record of the case and was served on counsel for the 

estate. Under these circumstances, the purpose of 

requ1r1ng that a party's death be suggested on the 

record was clearly satisfied. 

Appellees' Brief at 9. We disagree. 

The running of the ninety-day limitations period under Rule 

25(a)(l) is not triggered unless a formal suggestion of death is 

made on the record, regardless of whether the parties have 

knowledge of a party's death. See Miller Bros., 505 F.2d at 

1034-35. Mere reference to a party's death in court proceedings 

or pleadings is not sufficient to trigger the limitations period 

for filing a motion for substitution. See, ~, Kaldawy v. Gold 

Serv. Movers, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 475, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)(court's 

order noting plaintiff's death and placing case on suspended 

calendar, which was mailed to counsel for all parties, including 

decedent's counsel, insufficient to trigger the ninety-day 

limitations period); Tolliver v. Leach, 126 F.R.D. 529, 530-31 

(W.O. Mich. 1989)(defense counsel's statement concerning 

defendant's death, made on record during discovery conference, 

insufficient to trigger limitations period); Gronowicz v. Leonard, 

109 F.R.D. 624, 626-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)(letter from party's 

attorney to court notifying court of party's death insufficient 

suggestion of death to trigger limitations period). 

Further, a suggestion of death must be served in accordance 

with Rule 25(a)(1). See Miller Bros., 505 F.2d at 1034-35. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1359 Document: 01019708250 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 4 
Defendants argue that the requirement of service was satisfied in 

the instant case during the initial appellate proceedings because 

the supplemental briefs and this court's order were served on the 

attorneys for the parties, including decedent's attorney who is 

also the attorney for decedent's estate. While service of a 

suggestion of death on counsel will satisfy the requirement of 

Rule 25(a)(1) for service of parties to the litigation, the 

service required by Rule 25(a)(1) on nonparties, specifically the 

successors or representatives of the deceased party's estate, must 

be service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See Fariss v. Lynchburg 

Foundry, 769 F.2d 958, 961 (4th Cir. 1985)(to satisfy Rule 

25(a)(1), motion for substitution or suggestion of death must be 

personally served on nonparty representative of deceased, rather 

than deceased's attorney); see also 7C Wright & Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure§ 1955 (2d ed. 1986). 

In the instant case, because the personal representative of 

decedent's estate did not receive service of any purported 

suggestion of death, the ninety-day limitations period did not 

begin to run. See Miller Bros., 505 F.2d at 1034-35. Plaintiffs' 

motion for substitution was thus timely filed. 

The order of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado denying plaintiffs' motion for substitution 

and granting defendants' motion to dismiss is REVERSED, and the 

case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-1359 Document: 01019708250 Date Filed: 09/06/1990 Page: 5