Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00206/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00206-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Kern
Defendant
Lore Kaplan
Plaintiff
Gabriel Lopez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORE KAPLAN, individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, a municipality; 

GABRIEL LOPEZ, an individual; and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT

ORDER SUBSTITUTING WENDY KAPLAN 

AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST FOR

PLAINTIFF LORE KAPLAN

(Doc. No. 44)

The operative first amended complaint in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claims that plaintiff Lore Kaplan’s rights under the United States Constitution and

California state law were violated when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Kern County 

Sheriff’s Deputy Gabriel Lopez, on or about March 25, 2013. (Doc. No. 31, at 2.) On April 22, 

2016, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to substitute plaintiff’s daughter Wendy Kaplan as 

successor in interest for the recently deceased plaintiff, Lore Kaplan, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 25 and California Code of Civil Procedure 377.32. (Doc. No. 44.) On 

June 7, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the motion. Attorney Neil Gehlawat appeared for 

the plaintiff and moving party. Attorney Oliver Robinson appeared for defendant Lopez and 

Deputy County Counsel Judith Denny appeared for defendant County of Kern. For the reasons 

that follow, the motion to substitute will be granted.

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 56 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing the substitution of parties, 

provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) Death

(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. 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.

Thus, in deciding a motion to substitute under Rule 25, a court must consider whether: (1) the 

motion is timely; (2) the claims pled are not extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is 

a proper party. See Savoy v. Schlachter, No. 2:13-cv-00014-JAM-AC, 2014 WL 3689365, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. July 24, 2014). If these conditions are met the court has discretion to order the 

substitution of the proper party. See Anderson v Yungkau, 329 US 482 (1947) (superseded by 

statute on other grounds as stated in Al-Jundi v Estate of Rockefeller, 757 F. Supp. 206 (W.D. 

N.Y. 1990).

In this case, the motion is timely. Rule 25(a)(1) “requires two affirmative steps to trigger 

the running of the 90 day period.” Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). The first 

step is to formally suggest the death of the party upon the record. Id. The second step is to serve 

other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased with a statement of death 

in the same manner as required for service of the motion to substitute. Id. Nothing in the record 

prior to the filing of this motion suggested the death of plaintiff Lore Kaplan. In addition, the 

motion to substitute was brought within ninety days of Lore Kaplan’s death. The ninety day 

period provided by Rule 25 has, therefore, indisputably not expired.

Further, the claims pled in the first amended complaint have not been extinguished. 

Generally, the law of the forum state determines whether § 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). In California, “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). Since the forum state here is California and the only claims presented are 

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 56 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 5
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

3

brought pursuant to § 1983 and California state law, the death of the plaintiff did not extinguish 

the action.

Defendants argue that California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.34 prohibits pain and 

suffering damages in a survival action.

1

 (Doc. No. 52, at 5.) Defendants also argue that plaintiff 

has presented no evidence supporting the award of special damages in this case and that the 

award of nominal damages would not justify the award of attorney fees. (Id. at 4–8.) Defendant 

has presented no authority for the court to exercise its discretion with respect to substitution on 

the basis of the categories of damages available. In any event, the court declines to do so.

Finally, Wendy Kaplan is a “proper party.” Rule 25(a)(1) requires only that plaintiff 

provide evidence that Wendy Kaplan is decedent’s successor in interest or legal representative. 

See Savoy, 2014 WL 3689365, at *2 (citing Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th 

Cir. 1996)). The California Code of Civil Procedure also provides that:

The person who seeks . . . to continue a pending action or 

proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article 

shall execute and file an affidavit or declaration under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following:

(1) The decedent’s name.

(2) The date and place of the decedent’s death.

(3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration

of the decedent's estate.”

(4) If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final

order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action 

to the successor in interest.

(5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support

thereof:

(A) “The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in

interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California 

 

1

Section 377.34 does so, it would appear, only to the extent that the violation of federal law did 

not cause the decedent’s death. Compare Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 592–3 (1978) 

with Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1104–5 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The Court’s 

statement in Robertson that § 1983 does not require compensation to the decedent’s estate was 

made in a case where the alleged violation of federal law did not cause the decedent’s 

death. . . . Section 377.34 [] does not apply to § 1983 claims where the decedent’s death was 

caused by the violation of federal law.”)

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 56 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent's 

interest in the action or proceeding.”

(B) “The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf 

of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in 

Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil 

Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the 

action or proceeding.”

(6) “No other person has a superior right to commence the action or 

proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending

action or proceeding.”

(7) “The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of

perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32(a). Additionally, a certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate 

must be attached to this affidavit or declaration. Id. at § 377.32(c).

Here, Wendy Kaplan has submitted the required declaration providing the necessary 

information. (Doc. No. 44-1.) Plaintiff Lore Kaplan died on January 24, 2015 in Albany, 

Oregon, while this lawsuit was pending. (Id.) No proceeding is now pending in California or 

Oregon for administration of Lore Kaplan’s estate. (Id.) Wendy Kaplan is one of her mother’s 

successors in interest, as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and 

she succeeds to her mother’s interest in this action or proceeding. (Id.) No person has a superior 

right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for Lore Kaplan in this pending 

action or proceeding. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel has also filed with the court a certified copy of the

death certificate of Lore Kaplan, indicating that Lore Kaplan did in fact pass away on January 24, 

2016 in Albany, Oregon and that Wendy Kaplan is indeed her daughter. (Doc. No. 44-2.) 

Accordingly, the court finds that Wendy Kaplan is a “proper party.”

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 56 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

1) The motion to substitute (Doc. No. 44) is granted; 

2) Wendy Kaplan is substituted as successor in interest for plaintiff Lore Kaplan; and

3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the docket to reflect the substitution of 

Wendy Kaplan as successor in interest for plaintiff Lore Kaplan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00206-DAD-JLT Document 56 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 5