Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc., Judge Daniels denied David Bray’s substitution motion without prejudice and required refiling under Rule 25(a).
David Bray and the estate or successor of deceased defendant Richard Mgrdechian were affected. The ruling concerned the procedure for substituting the deceased defendant and did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc., David Bray notified the court that defendant Richard Mgrdechian had died around August 7, 2020. Bray said his legal interests and claims were unaffected by the death.
Bray asked to replace Mgrdechian with his estate or successor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1).
The court denied the motion without prejudice and directed Bray to file the motion again in accordance with Rule 25(a) by November 20, 2020. Judge George Daniels also directed the clerk to close the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-05205
- George Daniels
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
David Bray was the plaintiff, and Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc. and Richard Mgrdechian were the defendants. The motion states that Bray had been informed that Mgrdechian died on or about August 7, 2020, in New York. Bray asserted that his legal interests and causes of action remained unaffected by the death.
Motion
Bray moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) to substitute Mgrdechian’s estate or successor for the deceased defendant.
Ruling
The court denied the motion without prejudice. It directed Bray to file the motion again in accordance with Rule 25(a) by Friday, November 20, 2020. The clerk was directed to close docket entry 117. The order addressed the procedure for substituting a deceased party and did not decide the underlying claims.
Uncertainty
The caption spells the defendant’s name “Richard Mgrdechian,” while the motion text spells it “Richard Merdechian.” The supplied case information identifies George Daniels as the judge, but the visible signature block appears to contain a different name.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.