Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Nov. 7, 2022

Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:22-cv-04223
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc., Judge McMahon’s text records a request to substitute Judy Arnold for deceased plaintiff Bruce Arnold but shows no ruling.

Who this affects

The requested substitution would replace deceased plaintiff Bruce Arnold with Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, if the court grants the request. Iris Properties, Inc. is the named defendant.

What happened

Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc. involves a filing reporting that plaintiff Bruce Arnold died on October 8, 2022. The filing asks the court to substitute Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, as plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25.

The filing argues that the case’s intellectual-property, royalty, contract, unfair-competition, and trademark claims survived Bruce Arnold’s death. It also says Judy Arnold was Bruce Arnold’s surviving spouse and trustee of the trust, which the filing identifies as his successor and representative.

The provided text does not show a court ruling on the request. Judge Colleen McMahon’s disposition therefore cannot be determined from this text.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04223
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Nov. 7, 2022

Document and requested relief

The provided document is titled “Notice of Suggestion of Death” and includes motions to identify and substitute the proper party. Counsel reports that plaintiff Bruce Arnold died on October 8, 2022, and asks the court to substitute Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, in his place under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a).

Arguments in the filing

The filing states that substitution requires showing that the motion is timely, the claims were not extinguished by the plaintiff’s death, and the proposed substitute is a proper party. It argues that the claims in this case—including claims concerning intellectual property, royalties, other contractual issues, breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement—survived Bruce Arnold’s death.

The filing further states that Judy Arnold is Bruce Arnold’s surviving spouse and the trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST. It says that the trust received rights connected to Bruce Arnold’s intellectual property and businesses and gave the trustee authority to prosecute or defend claims involving trust property. The filing therefore maintains that Judy Arnold, as trustee, is the proper plaintiff going forward and asks that the case caption be amended if substitution is ordered.

Disposition

The provided text contains the party’s request and supporting arguments, but it does not contain an order granting, denying, or otherwise resolving the motions. The court’s disposition cannot be determined from this document.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.