Moyer v. Joseph R. Cellura

Background

Allen Moyer and ADMI Incorporated filed the complaint on June 20, 2023. It named Joseph R. Cellura, ADMI Inc., and Tarsin Mobile, Inc. as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unfairly competed with them by falsely representing that the defendants had purchased or were connected with the plaintiffs’ business operations and by impersonating or imitating ADMI.

The defendants notified the court that Cellura had died on June 21, 2025. The plaintiffs then moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint that would replace Cellura with Michael Ghiselli. The parties consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge, and the court decided the motion without a hearing.

Request to Substitute Ghiselli for Cellura

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 provides a process for replacing a deceased party when the claim continues. The person substituted must be the deceased person’s successor or personal representative. The court applied California law, which defines a personal representative to include an executor or administrator and defines a successor in interest as a person who succeeds to a cause of action or particular property interest.

The parties disputed or did not address several Rule 25 issues. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ motion was filed more than 90 days after the notice of death. The plaintiffs noted that the parties had stipulated to an October 14, 2025 deadline and that the court had approved that stipulation. The parties also did not address whether the claims ended when Cellura died.

The court did not resolve those issues because the plaintiffs had not shown that Ghiselli was Cellura’s successor or personal representative. The plaintiffs relied on their allegations that Ghiselli had worked “hand-in-hand” with Cellura and had been Cellura’s “right-hand man, alter ego and co-conspirator.” The court concluded that those allegations did not establish the legal relationship required for substitution. It therefore DENIED the request to substitute Ghiselli for Cellura.

Leave to Amend

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court should generally allow a party to amend its pleading when justice requires. Courts may deny leave based on factors such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix earlier deficiencies, unfair prejudice, or futility.

The defendants argued that amendment would be prejudicial because the plaintiffs had long known about Ghiselli’s alleged involvement. They also argued that amendment would be futile because the claims against Ghiselli did not relate back to the original complaint and were partly barred by the applicable time limit.

The court found that any prejudice from the delay was minimal. The parties had not exchanged initial disclosures, and fact discovery was not scheduled to close until August 2026. The court also stated that the record did not allow it to decide whether the claims against Ghiselli would relate back to the original complaint. That question could not be resolved on the motion for leave to amend.

The court therefore GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion to add Ghiselli as a new defendant. The court stated that this ruling did not decide the legal adequacy of the proposed claims, whether they related back to the original complaint, or whether Ghiselli could later move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

Disposition

The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ request to substitute Michael Ghiselli for the deceased defendant, Joseph R. Cellura, but GRANTED the plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint adding Ghiselli as a new defendant by January 9, 2026. The plaintiffs were required to attach a redline showing the changes from the original complaint.