Sanchez v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-03567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sanchez v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Judge Schofield dismissed the action after no representative sought substitution within Rule 25’s deadline.
The dismissal ended the action against the remaining defendants after no personal representative was identified or substituted for Samuel Sanchez; the court closed the case without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Sanchez v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the plaintiff’s lawyer reported that Samuel Sanchez had died around April 8, 2020. The court then required a personal representative for his estate to be identified so the case could continue.
No personal representative was identified by the court’s extended August 17 deadline. The court noted that no request to substitute a representative had been filed within the required 90-day period after the death notice.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed the action against the remaining defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:19-cv-03567
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
On April 15, 2020, Nicole Geoglis, counsel for Samuel Sanchez, filed a notice informing the court that Sanchez had died on or around April 8, 2020. The notice was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), which addresses what happens when a party dies while a case is pending.
Before this order, the Second Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal involving the Amsterdam Housing Authority and Michael Dayian, vacated the related interlocutory order, and sent instructions to dismiss the action against the Amsterdam Housing Authority. On April 24, 2020, the district court dismissed the action against the Amsterdam Housing Authority and Michael Dayian.
The district court later directed Sanchez’s counsel to provide information about appointing a personal representative authorized to act for Sanchez’s estate. The court stated that the case would be dismissed under Rule 25(a)(1) if counsel could not locate a representative by August 17, 2020. On that date, counsel reported that no personal representative had been identified.
Rule Applied
Rule 25(a)(1) provides that, when a party dies and the claim continues, the court may order substitution of the proper party. It also provides that if no motion for substitution is made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the deceased party must be dismissed.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be dismissed against the remaining defendants. It based the dismissal on the undisputed absence of a motion for substitution within 90 days after the suggestion of death was filed, as well as the failure to identify a representative by the extended deadline. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The order did not address the merits of the underlying claims. This was a procedural dismissal based on the failure to substitute a proper party after Sanchez’s death.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.