Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-00840
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice a motion to replace deceased plaintiff Haiping Wu because substitution documents were insufficient.
The ruling directly affected plaintiffs seeking to substitute Xiaolin Zhang for deceased plaintiff Haiping Wu and defendants who would otherwise litigate against the proposed substitute. The motion was denied without prejudice, so the opinion allowed a renewed motion with additional documentation and supporting case law.
What happened
In Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, defendants notified the court that plaintiff Haiping Wu had died. Plaintiffs asked to replace him with Xiaolin Zhang, identified as the administrator of Wu’s estate.
Defendants did not oppose the request but said they had not been able to question Wu before his death. The court explained that substitution is discretionary and may be denied when allowing it would be unfair.
The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice because the submitted administration certificate was not valid according to its own terms and plaintiffs provided no death certificate, marriage certificate, or obituary. Judge Broderick allowed plaintiffs to renew the motion with more documentation and supporting case law.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Shun Lee Palace Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00840
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 16, 2023
Background
Defendants filed a notice informing the court that plaintiff Haiping Wu had died. Plaintiffs then moved to substitute Xiaolin Zhang for Wu, describing Zhang as the administrator of Wu’s estate.
Defendants did not oppose the motion. They stated, however, that they had been unable to take Wu’s deposition before his death and therefore had not been able to question him about his allegations.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that substitution of a party after death is discretionary. It may deny substitution of a deceased plaintiff when circumstances make substitution unfair. Under Rule 25, the proposed substitute must also be a proper party.
Plaintiffs submitted a redacted Certificate of Voluntary Administration. The court found that the certificate did not contain the raised seal of the Queens County Surrogate’s Court and therefore was not valid according to the certificate itself. Plaintiffs also submitted no death certificate, marriage certificate, or obituary for Wu. Based on the limited documentation, the court could not determine that Zhang was a proper party to substitute for Wu.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion for substitution without prejudice. The court directed that any renewed motion include additional proof and documentation, along with supporting case law from the Second Circuit explaining why Zhang is the proper party to substitute for Wu’s claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Document 297.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.