Nieves v. Farber
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-00990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Michael Nieves v. Philip Meagher, Judge Liman dismissed the action after no substitution motion was filed within 90 days of notice of Nieves’s death.
The action brought by Michael Nieves against Philip Meagher and the other named defendants was dismissed; the Clerk was directed to close this case and related member Case No. 21-cv-7171.
What happened
In Michael Nieves v. Philip Meagher et al., the defendants told the court that Michael Nieves had died and served that notice at his last known addresses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 allows a proper party to be substituted when a litigant dies, but requires a substitution motion within 90 days after the death notice is served if the claim continues.
Because more than 90 days passed without a substitution motion, Judge Liman dismissed the action under Rule 25(a)(1) and directed the Clerk to close the case and related member case No. 21-cv-7171.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. Farber · No. 1:20-cv-00990
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
On October 27, 2022, the defendants filed a letter stating that Plaintiff Michael Nieves had died. The letter was served at Nieves’s last known address at the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center and at the Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward.
Rule Applied
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides that when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A party or the deceased person’s successor or representative may make the substitution motion. If no substitution motion is made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the deceased party must be dismissed. The court also explained that the defendants properly served the statement under the rules governing service by mail.
Ruling
More than 90 days had passed since the defendants served the statement noting Nieves’s death, and no substitution motion had been filed. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1). Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the Clerk of Court to close this case and related member Case No. 21-cv-7171. The opinion does not state whether any successor or representative existed or whether anyone sought to reopen the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.