Stines v. Sanchez
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:21-cv-07884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stines v. Bernal, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied substitution of Bernal’s estate because Rule 25 requires a successor or estate representative.
Kimberly Stines’s attempt to substitute a defendant after Joseph Bernal’s death was affected. The order denied substitution of the estate itself but stated that Stines could seek an extension of the substitution deadline and file a further motion identifying a proper successor or estate representative.
What happened
In Stines v. Bernal, Kimberly Stines asked the court to replace deceased defendant Joseph Bernal with the “Estate of Joseph W. Bernal.” The opinion states that Stines appeared to be seeking appointment of an estate representative in Florida, but no representative had been shown to have been appointed.
The court denied the motion because an estate itself is not a proper party for substitution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. The proper substitute must be a successor, such as a distributee, or a person legally appointed to represent the estate. The court noted that the 90-day deadline for seeking substitution had passed or would pass, and said Stines could ask for an extension by showing good cause under Rule 6(b).
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on February 14, 2023. The order addressed only the requested substitution and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Stines v. Sanchez · No. 1:21-cv-07884
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
The case was removed to federal court by Fordham University on September 21, 2021. Kimberly Stines later filed an amended complaint. She then notified the court that defendant Joseph Bernal had died and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 to substitute the “Estate of Joseph W. Bernal” as a defendant.
The opinion states that papers filed in a Florida probate court appeared to seek appointment of both a curator and a personal representative, but the record did not show that any representative had been appointed. The opinion also notes that there was no record that Bernal had been served with the amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
Rule 25 provides that, when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. The court explained that an estate is not a proper party for substitution. Instead, the proper party is either a successor of the deceased person, such as a distributee, or a representative of the estate—meaning a person lawfully designated by state authority to represent it.
Because Stines’s motion sought to substitute the estate itself, rather than an identified successor or legally appointed representative, the motion did not name a proper substitute. The court also recognized that a further substitution motion would necessarily be filed after Rule 25’s 90-day period and stated that Stines could seek an extension of that deadline by showing good cause under Rule 6(b).
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Stines’s motion to substitute the Estate of Joseph W. Bernal. The order did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.