Negron v. Top Class Management, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-08457
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Negron v. Top Class Management, Judge Cronan ordered a status update about service after Negron’s death before deciding whether Rule 25 requires dismissal.
The order directly affected the defendants and Jannette Negron’s counsel, who were required to file a joint status letter; it also concerned potential heirs or legal representatives who may have an interest in the case.
What happened
In Negron v. Top Class Management, Inc., the plaintiff’s lawyer told the court that Jannette Negron had died on December 23, 2022.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 generally requires dismissal if no one asks to replace a deceased party within 90 days after notice of the death. The court was unsure whether people who might have an interest in the case, such as potential heirs or a legal representative, had received the required notice.
The court ordered the defendants and Negron’s lawyer to file a joint status letter by June 16, 2023, identifying any interested individuals and explaining whether and when they had been served. Judge John P. Cronan did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Negron v. Top Class Management, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08457
- John Cronan
- June 1, 2023
Background
On February 27, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff Jannette Negron filed a statement notifying the court that Negron had died on December 23, 2022.
Rule at Issue
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 provides that when a party dies, a motion to substitute another person or entity must generally be made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death. If no substitution motion is made within that period, the action by or against the deceased party must be dismissed. The court explained that, under the approach generally followed in the Second Circuit, the 90-day period usually begins when a party receives notice through a statement of death filed under Rule 25.
The court noted that filing the statement on the docket would have served the parties electronically under Rule 5. It was unclear, however, whether nonparties who might have an interest in the case—such as Negron’s potential heirs or a legal representative of Negron or her estate—had been served under Rule 4. Rule 25 requires the statement of death to be served on nonparties in that manner.
Order
The court ordered the defendants and Negron’s counsel to file a joint status letter by June 16, 2023. The letter must state whether they know of any individuals with an interest in the litigation, whether those individuals were served with the statement of death, and, if so, the dates of service.
The order did not dismiss the action or decide whether dismissal would ultimately be required. It addressed the need to determine whether the required service had occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.