Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-04223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc., Judge McMahon’s text records a request to substitute Judy Arnold as plaintiff after Bruce Arnold’s death, without stating a ruling.
The filing concerns Bruce Arnold’s estate and THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, and it asks to substitute Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, for Bruce Arnold as plaintiff; the text does not state how the court ruled.
What happened
Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc. concerns a filing reporting Bruce Arnold’s death on October 8, 2022, and asking the court to replace him as plaintiff with Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST. The filing says the case involves intellectual-property rights, royalties, breach-of-contract claims, unfair competition, and trademark infringement.
The filing argues that the claims were not ended by Bruce Arnold’s death and that Judy Arnold and the trust are proper parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. It relies on allegations that Bruce Arnold transferred relevant property and rights to the trust and that the trust authorizes the trustee to pursue claims.
The provided text does not include a court ruling on the request. Judge Colleen McMahon is identified in the supplied case information, but no order granting or denying substitution appears in the text.
The detailed version
- Arnold v. Iris Properties, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04223
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 19, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided document is titled “Notice of Suggestion of Death” and “Motion to Substitute Proper Party.” It states that plaintiff Bruce Arnold died on October 8, 2022, and asks the court to substitute Judy Arnold, Trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, as the plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a).
Arguments in the filing
The filing argues that the request is timely, that the claims survived Bruce Arnold’s death, and that Judy Arnold and THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST are proper parties for substitution. It describes the litigation as involving intellectual-property rights, royalties, contractual issues, breach-of-contract claims, unfair competition, and trademark infringement. It asserts that these rights remain owed to Bruce Arnold’s heirs or successors.
The filing further states that Bruce Arnold created THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST with his wife, Judy Gail Arnold, as trustee, and that the trust received Bruce Arnold’s rights and interests in specified property, including intellectual property, songs, logos, goodwill, business assets, and rights associated with Bruce Arnold Music and the music group Orpheus. It also states that the trust gives the trustee authority to prosecute or defend claims involving trust property.
Rule and requested relief
The filing describes Rule 25(a) as allowing substitution when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished. It argues that a proper substitute may be the deceased party’s estate representative or successor and requests that Judy Arnold, as trustee of THE ARNOLD LIVING TRUST, replace Bruce Arnold as plaintiff and that the case caption be amended.
Disposition
The provided text contains the motion and its supporting arguments but no court order or stated disposition. It therefore does not show that the motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.