Estate of Timothy A. Cramer v. City of Oakland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY A. CRAMER, Case No. 19-cv-07922-PJH Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 44 Defendants.

The court is in receipt of defendant City of Oakland’s, Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick’s, and Officer Kaleo Albino’s (collectively, the “Oakland defendants”) motion to dismiss under Rule 25. Dkt. 44. The court is also in receipt of the remaining defendants’ joinder to that motion. Dkt. 45. The court has reviewed the parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority. The motion to dismiss is suitable for decision without oral argument. The court DENIES that motion. First, contrary to the Oakland defendants’ characterization, Rule 25(a)(1) does not mandate dismissal under the circumstances at hand. Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2017). Instead, the court may (and should) exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b) to consider the merits of…