Nieves v. Jia
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-08753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nieves v. Jia, Judge Ramos stayed the case after Nieves’s death and set a deadline for seeking substitution.
The case and any party or successor or representative seeking to continue it after Michael Nieves’s death; pending motions were treated as withdrawn without prejudice, and appeal fee-free status was denied.
What happened
Nieves v. Jia concerns a case in which the court was informed that Plaintiff Michael Nieves died on August 30, 2022. The court explained that a proper successor or representative could ask to be substituted under Rule 25, a federal rule governing substitution after a party’s death.
The court said a substitution motion could be filed by December 1, 2022. The motion would need to address whether it was timely, whether the claims continued after Nieves’s death, and whether the proposed replacement was an appropriate party.
The court stayed the case because there was no representative available to continue it, and treated pending motions as withdrawn without prejudice to renewal after a successor was appointed. Judge Edgardo Ramos also denied fee-free appeal status and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Nieves’s estate.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. Jia · No. 1:21-cv-08753
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
The court was informed that Plaintiff Michael Nieves died on August 30, 2022. The order addressed what would happen to the case after his death.
Substitution deadline
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) applies when a party dies and the claim has not ended. Under that rule, a party or the deceased person’s successor or representative may ask the court to substitute a proper party. If no substitution motion is filed within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action must be dismissed under the rule.
The court stated that any party could file a substitution motion by December 1, 2022. It said the motion must address three issues: whether it was timely, whether the claims survived Nieves’s death, and whether the proposed substitute was a proper party.
Court’s actions
The court found good cause to stay, or pause, the proceedings while a substitution motion could be submitted because there was no representative currently available to prosecute the plaintiff’s action. For the same reason, the court treated all pending motions as withdrawn without prejudice to renewal after a successor was appointed.
The Clerk was directed to note the stay on the docket and terminate the pending motion identified as Document 31. The Clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff’s estate by first-class and certified mail.
Appeal status and disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free appeal status for an appeal from this order. Judge Edgardo Ramos stayed the proceedings, treated the pending motions as withdrawn without prejudice, and issued the related docket and mailing directives; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.