Ruddell

Ruddell v. Eli Lilly & Company

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 20202:14-cv-03004California328 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KATRYNA WOLFF, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03004-KJM-EFB Plaintiffs, v. ORDER ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant. 16 In its October 25, 2019 order, the court explained that any nonparty successor or representative of deceased plaintiff Donald William Ruddell may move for substitution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) within 90 days of counsel’s October 3, 2019 filing. ECF No. 76. The court further warned that “[i]f the 90-day period expires without substitution . . ., the court may then dismiss the matter under Rule 25(a).” Id. at 2. As of this order, the 90-day motion period has elapsed without a substitution request. Accordingly, under the authority of Rule 25(a), deceased plaintiff Donald William Ruddell is dismissed without prejudice from this action. See Gruenberg v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. CV 06-0397-PHX-SMM (DKD), 2008 WL 2001253, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 7, 2008) (dismissing action…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.