Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cranmore v. Parts Authority, Judge Liman set deadlines after a defendant’s death and required a response about a pending motion to compel.
The plaintiffs, the DRA Defendants, the other defendants identified in the notice, and the process for substituting a proper party for the deceased defendant were affected. The pending motion to compel was subject to a possible withdrawal and later renewal.
What happened
Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC concerns the effect of an individual defendant’s death on a pending motion to compel. The court addressed a notice filed by the DRA Defendants stating that Amrit Dabie had died.
The court ruled that the DRA Defendants’ written notice was sufficient to start the 90-day period for asking to substitute the proper party for Mr. Dabie. The parties therefore had 90 days from May 21, 2025, to seek substitution.
The court also required the plaintiff to explain by June 12, 2025, why the motion to compel should not be treated as withdrawn without prejudice to renewal after any substitution issue is resolved. Defendants could respond by June 16, 2025. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Cranmore v. Parts Authority, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05842
- Lewis Liman
- June 5, 2025
Background
On May 21, 2025, DRA Logistics Corp. and 130 St Equities LLC, together called the “DRA Defendants,” filed a letter and notice of death. They advised the court that Amrit Dabie, an individual defendant and the principal of the DRA Defendants, AD Delivery & Warehousing Inc., and AC Automotive, Inc., had died.
The DRA Defendants asked the court to record Mr. Dabie’s death and hold the plaintiff’s motion to compel in abeyance. The opinion refers to that motion as Dkt. No. 67 in one passage and Dkt. No. 68 in another.
Court’s Ruling
The court held that the DRA Defendants’ letter was sufficient notice of death for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. That rule provides a 90-day period to move for substitution of the proper party after a party’s death is formally noted on the record through a written statement that is served on the appropriate people and filed with the court.
The court ruled that the 90-day period began on May 21, 2025, the date of the DRA Defendants’ letter. The parties therefore had 90 days from that date to move for substitution of Mr. Dabie’s replacement party.
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by June 12, 2025, why the motion to compel should not be deemed withdrawn without prejudice to renewal after resolution of any substitution. The defendants could respond by June 16, 2025. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on June 5, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.