1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEORGE WALTHER-MEADE, an Case No.: 3:22-cv-01777-JAH-BLM individual, 11

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, 12 MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE v. SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST 13

GEORGE WALTHER-MEADE FOR

LEIDOS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 14 THE NAMED PLAINTIFF and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

15 Defendants/Counter Claimant. (ECF No. 37). 16 17 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Substitute George Walther-Meade as 18 successor-in-interest to Plaintiff George Walther-Meade, who passed away on November 19 6, 2023. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37). Defendant/Counter Claimant Leidos, Inc. (“Defendant”) 20 filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 38). Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 25 governs this issue and provides: 22 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by 23 any party or by the decedent's successor or representative. If the motion is not 24 made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 25 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). 27 Here, Plaintiff died on November 6, 2023 while this lawsuit was pending. Plaintiff’s 28 counsel filed a status report on December 5, 2023, notifying the Court of Plaintiff’s death. 1 ||(ECF No. 30). The 90-day period to file a motion for substitution was set to expire on 2 ||March 4, 2024, the same day the instant motion was filed. See Zanowick v. Baxter 3 || Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2017). 4 Substitution also requires that the underlying claims survive the death of the party. 5 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). “The question of whether an action survives the death of a party 6 || must be determined by looking towards the law, state or federal, under which the cause of 7 action arose.” Stribling v. Lucero, No. 2:16-cv-01438-TLN-JDP, 2021 WL 516849 at *1 8 ||(E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) (citation omitted). Because the claims here are brought under 9 || California law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, the claims survive Plaintiff's death. See 10 || Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.20(a) (“[A] cause of action for or against a person is not lost by 11 ||reason of the person's death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.). 12 Finally, “state law determines who is a ‘proper party’ for the purposes of Rule 13 }}25(a)(1).” Bustillos v. N.H. Ball Bearings, 2018 WL 6333680, *2 (C.D. Cal. November 6, 14 || 2018) (citing /n re Baycol Prods. Litig., 616 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 2010)). California law 15 || provides that “an action can be continued by a decedent’s personal representative or, if 16 ||/none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.32. Mr. Walther- 17 ||Meade’s declaration provides the necessary information to demonstrate that he is the 18 |} successor-in-interest to Plaintiff's claims. 19 The prerequisites set forth in Rule 25 are satisfied, and George Walther-Meade is 20 || successor-in-interest to the instant action. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, 21 the hearing set for April 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||DATED: April 2, 2024 24 25 J@HN A. HOUSTON %6 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28