Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-05231
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Judge Chesney granted substitution, dismissed three claims as moot, and deferred jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
Diedre Kellogg Ketroser was allowed to substitute for David B. Ketroser on the Second and Fourth Causes of Action. The First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action were dismissed as moot, while jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims was left undecided.
What happened
In Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Inc., David B. Ketroser filed a five-claim complaint and later died. His widow, Diedre Kellogg Ketroser, who was also the personal representative of his estate, asked to replace him as plaintiff on two claims for damages.
The court ruled that those two claims—the second claim under the California Disabled Persons Act and the fourth under the Unruh Civil Rights Act—survived his death. It granted Diedre Kellogg Ketroser’s request to replace him on those claims and directed her to file an amended complaint showing the substitution.
The court dismissed the first, third, and fifth claims as moot because they ended when David B. Ketroser died. It postponed deciding whether to keep jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Judge Maxine M. Chesney also allowed Diedre Kellogg Ketroser to later ask to add her own claims.
The detailed version
- Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-05231
- Maxine Chesney
- Mar. 13, 2020
Background
David B. Ketroser filed a complaint with five causes of action on August 21, 2019. He died on November 7, 2019. Diedre Kellogg Ketroser, his widow and the personal representative of his estate, then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 to substitute herself as plaintiff on the Second Cause of Action and Fourth Cause of Action.
The Second Cause of Action sought damages under the California Disabled Persons Act. The Fourth Cause of Action sought damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Substitution
The court concluded that the Second and Fourth Causes of Action were not extinguished by David B. Ketroser’s death. It also concluded that Diedre Kellogg Ketroser, as the personal representative of his estate and as authorized by a Minnesota probate court, was a proper party to substitute for him under Rule 25.
The court therefore granted the motion to substitute. It directed Diedre Kellogg Ketroser to file an amended complaint by March 23, 2020, reflecting the substitution and making no other changes.
Dismissed Claims and Jurisdiction
The court found that the remaining causes of action had been extinguished by David B. Ketroser’s death. It dismissed the First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action as moot. The First Cause of Action was David B. Ketroser’s only federal claim.
The defendants argued that, because the federal claim had ended, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismiss the entire action in favor of a state-court proceeding. Diedre Kellogg Ketroser responded that, if allowed to substitute, she would seek to add her own federal claim based on essentially the same circumstances. The court deferred deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over the currently pending state-law claims.
The court also directed that, if Diedre Kellogg Ketroser chose to bring her own claims, she could move by April 2, 2020, after filing the substitution amendment, to file another amended complaint asserting those additional causes of action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.