1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA GRACIA, individually and as Case No. 1:23-cv-1104-JLT-BAM successor-in-interest to LOUIE 12 GRIJALVA IV, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION TO JOIN HEIRS

13 Plaintiffs, PURSUANT TO RULE 19 14 v. (Doc. 38) 15 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 16 Defendants. 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This case arises out of the death of Louie Grijalva, IV (“Decedent’), while a convicted 20 prisoner serving his sentence at the Kern County Jail—Lerdo Pretrial Facility, in Bakersfield, 21 California. Plaintiff Carolina Gracia brings this action in both her individual capacity and as 22 successor-in-interest to the Decedent. The operative First Amended Complaint asserts claims 23 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law, including wrongful death under California Code 24 of Civil Procedure § 377.60, against defendants County of Kern (“Defendant Kern”), David 25 Navarro, and Does 1 through 10. (Doc. 10.) 26 Defendant Kern now moves to require Plaintiff Gracia to join certain heirs as necessary 27 parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. (Doc. 38.) The motion was referred to 28 1 the undersigned for appropriate action. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff Gracia did not file a timely 2 opposition. L.R. 230(d). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will recommend that 3 Defendant Kern’s motion be granted. 4 II. MOTION TO JOIN HEIRS PURSUANT TO RULE 19 5 A. Legal Standard 6 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, courts apply a three-part test to determine 7 whether a nonparty (or “absentee”) must be joined in an action. EEOC v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 8 610 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2010); Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. 9 Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012). At the first step, the court must determine whether the 10 absentee should be joined under Rule 19(a). Peabody, 610 F.3d at 1078. At the second step, if the 11 absentee meets the requirements of Rule 19(a), the court must determine whether it is feasible to 12 order that the absentee be joined. Id. Finally, if joinder is not feasible, the court must determine at 13 the third step whether the case can proceed without the absentee or whether the action must be 14 dismissed. Id. 15 B. Discussion 16 Defendant Kern seeks to join Louie Grijalva, Jr.,1 the biological “father heir of Decedent,” 17 as party to this action. Defendant Kern asserts that because California permits only one action for 18 wrongful death, all heirs must be joined to the single action. Defendant Kern therefore concludes 19 that Rule 19 requires joinder of Decedent’s father and requests that Plaintiff Gracia be ordered to 20 identify all heirs of Decedent and join them as parties. (Doc. 38 at 3.) 21 1. Rule 19(a) 22 The first step of the analysis requires a determination of whether Decedent’s father is a 23 “necessary” party and should be joined under Rule 19(a).2 Peabody, 610 F.3d 1078. A party may 24 be necessary under Rule 19(a) in three different ways. Salt River Project, 672 F.3d at 1179. First, 25 1 Defendant Kern reportedly learned that Mr. Grijalva is the biological father of Decedent during 26 depositions in early December. (Doc. 38 at 3 n.1.) 2 “As of December 1, 2007, Rule 19 no longer refers to ‘necessary’ or ‘indispensable’ parties. Instead, it 27 refers to ‘persons required to be joined if feasible’ and persons in whose absence, if they cannot be joined, the action should not proceed.” Peabody, 610 F.3d at 1077 n.1. The Court will use these terms 28 interchangeably. 1 a person is necessary if, in the person’s absence, “the court cannot accord complete relief among 2 existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A). Second, a person is necessary if that person has an 3 interest in the action and resolving the action in the person’s absence may “as a practical matter 4 impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). 5 Third, a person is necessary if that person has an interest in the action and resolving the action in 6 the person’s absence may “leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, 7 multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 19(a)(1)(B)(ii). 9 Under California law, a wrongful death claim may be brought by the “surviving spouse, 10 domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children” of the decedent. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 11 § 377.60(a). If there is no surviving issue of the decedent, a wrongful death claim may be brought 12 by the persons “who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession.” Id. 13 “While each heir designated in section 377.60 has a personal and separate wrongful death 14 cause of action, the actions are deemed joint, single and indivisible and must be joined together in 15 one suit.” Corder v. Corder, 41 Cal. 4th 644, 652 (2007). Further, “[a]n heir who files a 16 wrongful death action is required to properly join all known heirs in that action.” Id. at 652 n.3. 17 Because the actions are joint, single, and indivisible, and all heirs must join, federal courts have 18 found that absent heirs are necessary parties in wrongful death cases. See Engel v. R.J. Reynolds 19 Tobacco Co., No. CV 2:17-618 WBS GGH, 2017 WL 2119805, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2017); 20 Backer v. United States, No. 1:13-CV-1552 AWI GSA, 2014 WL 4267500, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21 29, 2014) (indicating federal courts have generally held that absent heirs are considered necessary 22 parties in wrongful death cases); Estate of Burkhart v. United States, No. C 07-5467 PJH, 2008 23 WL 4067429, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2008) (“Ordinarily in a wrongful death action brought 24 under California law, all heirs must join, and complete relief is not possible without the presence 25 of all the heirs. Thus, the missing heirs may be considered necessary.”). The Court finds that 26 Decedent’s father, as a known heir, is a necessary party under state law. 27 2. Feasible 28 “There are three instances when joinder is not feasible: ‘when venue is improper, when 1 the absentee is not subject to personal jurisdiction, and when joinder would destroy subject matter 2 jurisdiction.’” Solares v. Allison, No. 1:20-cv-00323-NONE-BAM, 2022 WL 102216, at *7 3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 4 2005)). Defendant Kern does not directly address these instances, but submits additional 5 information in a footnote implicating whether joinder is feasible. To that end, Defendant Kern 6 reports its counsel “confirmed with [the] internal claims system that Kern did not receive a claim 7 from Louie Grijalva, Jr. relating to decedent.” (Doc. 38 at 4 n.2) (emphasis in original). Courts 8 have found joinder not feasible in circumstances where the missing heirs had failed to file the 9 requisite government claims. See A.D. v. California Highway Patrol, No. C 07-5483 SI, 2009 10 WL 733872, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009) (finding joinder not feasible because missing heir 11 had failed to file a government claim); cf. Estate of Burkhart, 2008 WL 4067429, at *7 (finding 12 joinder not feasible where missing heirs had failed to submit administrative claim). While 13 Defendant Kern may be correct that no claim was filed by Decedent’s father, the Court lacks 14 evidence or a supporting declaration to make such a determination. 15 3. Indispensable 16 “Rule 19(b) applies only if the Court concludes a party is required but joinder is not 17 feasible.” Solares, 2022 WL 102216, at *7; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) (applying Rule 19(b) when 18 “a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined”). Because there is no 19 indication thus far that joinder is not feasible, the Court need not reach the issue of 20 indispensability under Rule 19(b). 21 Defendant Kern suggests that the claims of Decedent’s father are barred by the statute of 22 limitations, which may result in a determination that Decedent’s father is not an indispensable 23 party under Rule 19(b). (See Doc. 38 at 4 n.2.) However, because it is not necessary to reach the 24 issue under Rule 19(b), discussion of whether the claims of Decedent’s father are barred by the 25 statute of limitations is not warranted at this stage. See Solares v. Diaz, No. 1:20-cv-00323 JLT 26 BAM, 2023 WL 3724814, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2023) (determining discussion of whether 27 heir’s claims barred by statute of limitations not warranted where court need not reach issue of 28 dispensability under Rule 19(b)). 1 C. Further Proceedings 2 Under Rule 19(a)(2), “[i]f a person has not been joined as required, the court must order 3 that the person be made a party.” As a result, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff Gracia be 4 directed to file a second amended complaint that either joins Decedent’s father or alleges 5 additional facts establishing why joinder is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2),(c). 6 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7 For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Defendant Kern’s motion to join heirs pursuant to Rule 19 (Doc. 38) be granted. 9 2. Plaintiff Gracia be directed to file a second amended complaint that either joins 10 Decedent’s father or alleges additional facts establishing why joinder is not required. 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 13 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 14 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 15 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 16 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 17 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 18 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 20 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 21 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: January 27, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 24

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27 28