Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-03789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, Judge Moses set an April 21 deadline to substitute for the deceased plaintiff or the case may be dismissed.
The deceased plaintiff's estate or any person seeking to replace Rockeith Martin in the case, the defendant NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, and the parties' reported settlement were affected by the April 21, 2021 substitution deadline.
What happened
In Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC, the parties told the court that the plaintiff had died and that they had reached a settlement resolving all issues. They did not submit the settlement for court approval or file a motion replacing the deceased plaintiff with a proper party.
The court explained that a state court appointment of an executor or estate representative was not necessarily required before seeking replacement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. It gave the parties until April 21, 2021, to file a replacement motion or agreement. If they did not, the case might be dismissed.
Judge Barbara Moses issued the order on March 22, 2021. The order did not dismiss the case; it set a final deadline for seeking replacement of the deceased plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Martin v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03789
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
This Fair Labor Standards Act case was brought by Rockeith Martin against NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC. On May 18, 2020, the parties informed the court that Martin had died on an unspecified date. They later reported that they had reached a settlement resolving all issues in the case.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement for approval under the governing appellate decision concerning settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The parties received three extensions but did not submit the agreement or a motion for approval. More than 90 days also passed after Martin's death was reported, without a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) to substitute a proper party for him.
Court’s analysis
The court issued multiple orders requiring the parties to explain the delay. Martin's counsel reported that his mother was seeking appointment in state court to represent his estate, but she had not yet been appointed. Counsel also stated that the timing of the state-court process was uncertain.
The court explained that Rule 25(a) does not require a state court to appoint an executor or representative before a substitution motion can be filed and granted. It noted that courts may allow substitution by several types of proper parties, including a person named in a will as executor or the primary beneficiary of an intestate estate that does not need to be probated.
The court further stated that Rules 25(a) and 41(b) require a plaintiff to pursue a case diligently. Rule 25(a)(1) generally provides 90 days after a suggestion of death is filed to seek substitution and requires dismissal when a timely substitution motion is not filed. The court found that ten months had passed since Martin's death was reported and cited other cases dismissing actions after similar or shorter delays.
Order and effect
The court ordered that any motion or agreement to substitute a proper party for Martin be filed no later than April 21, 2021. It stated that, if no motion or agreement was filed, the case might be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case and did not rule on the merits of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims or approve the reported settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.