Sawicki v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-02093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sawicki v. Commissioner, Judge Liman reserved decision on Laurien Sawicki’s request to replace Michael Sawicki after his death.
Laurien Sawicki’s request to continue the case as the replacement plaintiff was left undecided pending evidence that she was legally authorized to substitute for Michael Sawicki.
What happened
In Sawicki v. Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Sawicki was proceeding without a lawyer when defense counsel informed the court that he had died on November 21, 2021. The Commissioner also requested more time to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Michael Sawicki’s wife, Laurien Sawicki, asked to become the plaintiff. No one opposed her request, but the motion did not show that she was legally authorized to represent Michael Sawicki’s estate or was otherwise a proper replacement under the applicable federal rule.
Judge Lewis J. Liman reserved decision on the motion and gave Laurien Sawicki until August 5, 2022, to submit supporting evidence. The court also directed the Commissioner to mail her a copy of the order and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Sawicki v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-02093
- Lewis Liman
- July 8, 2022
Background
Michael Sawicki brought this Social Security case and was proceeding without a lawyer. On March 21, 2022, counsel for the Commissioner of Social Security informed the court that Sawicki had died on November 21, 2021. The Commissioner also requested a retroactive extension of time to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which had been due in December 2021.
The court then ordered the Commissioner to mail a Statement of Death to Sawicki’s last known address and file proof that it had been served. The court explained that a motion to substitute a new party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) had to be filed within 90 days after service of the Statement of Death.
Motion to Substitute
On June 16, 2022, Sawicki’s wife, Laurien Sawicki, filed a motion asking to substitute herself as the plaintiff. The opinion states that no opposition had been filed. However, the motion did not provide information showing that she was Sawicki’s successor or legal representative and therefore a proper party for substitution.
The court described categories that courts have generally recognized as proper parties, including a representative legally designated by a state authority to represent the estate, an appropriate beneficiary of a distributed or unprobated estate, or a person named in a will as executor. The motion did not state that Laurien Sawicki fit any of those categories.
Ruling and Next Step
The court reserved decision on the motion rather than granting or denying it. It gave Laurien Sawicki until August 5, 2022, to file evidence that could establish that she was a proper party. The court directed the Commissioner to mail her a copy of the order at the address listed in her motion and file proof of service. The opinion does not decide whether she ultimately qualifies for substitution.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.