Kramer

(PC) Allen v. Kramer

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20201:15-cv-01609California245 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

41.407 UV □□□ LYALL VL bMVVULITICIIL VO PHM VOrLsicy Payee +vr1re 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ALLEN, Case No. 1:15-cv-01609-DAD-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO v. RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE DECEASED DEFENDANT STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., ECE No. 97 Defendants. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS □□ Plaintiff moves to substitute a representative for the deceased defendant Cliff Allenby. 17 ECF No. 97. Plaintiff's motion is unopposed. However, it does not name the person to be 18 substituted or indicate whether it has been served on that individual. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a){3) 19 (requiring service of a motion to substitute). The burden of identifying defendant Cliff Allenby’s 20 personal representative falls upon defendants. See Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th 21 Cir.…

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.