Sullivan v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion by Patrick Sullivan to be substituted as the plaintiff in a Social Security case following the death of his wife, Renee Sullivan. The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were not extinguished and that Patrick was the proper party under Rule 25(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.503(b)(1).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Substitute Party granted“Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Patrick Sullivan as a party for deceased Plaintiff Renee Sullivan.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the three-part test for Rule 25(a)(1) substitution: timeliness, non-extinguishment of the claim, and proper party status. The record establishes that the motion was timely (previously found), the claim was not extinguished because benefits had not been fully paid, and Patrick was the proper party as the surviving spouse living in the same household, which is the highest priority under 20 C.F.R. § 404.503(b)(1). The SSA's agreement further supports the propriety of the substitution. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standards for substitution of parties under Rule 25(a)(1). It correctly identifies the necessary elements (timeliness, non-extinguishment, proper party) and supports its conclusion with the specific regulatory provision governing priority of payment to surviving spouses. The reliance on the SSA's status report and the prior court findings provides a sufficient factual basis for the decision.
Opinion
2 3
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 RENEE A. SULLIVAN, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00480-AHG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. SUBSTITUTE PARTY 13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 14 Commissioner of Social Security, [ECF No. 17] Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is the Motion to Substitute Party filed on June 11, 2024, by counsel 20 for Plaintiff Renee Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of her husband Patrick Sullivan 21 (“Patrick”), who seeks to be substituted as the Plaintiff in this case under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 17. The basis for the Motion is that Plaintiff 22 died on February 13, 2024, and Patrick is her surviving spouse. ECF No. 17-1 at 2; see also 23 ECF No. 17-2 (Plaintiff’s Death Certificate issued by the State of Texas). The motion is 24 unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 25 On March 25, 2024, the Court resolved the parties’ Joint Motion for Judicial Review 26 in this case in Plaintiff’s favor, granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and remanded this 27 2 benefits sought by Renee.” ECF No. 17-1 at 2. Additionally, attached to the Motion to 3 Substitute Party was a Notice Regarding Substitution of Party upon Death of Claimant dated May 5, 2024, which Patrick apparently submitted to the Social Security 4 Administration in order to be substituted as an eligible person at the agency level. ECF No. 5 17-4. On June 17, 2024, Patrick supplemented the Motion to Substitute Party with 6 information showing that he lived in the same household with Plaintiff at the time of her 7 death. ECF No. 19-3. On October 9, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant to provide a status 8 report as to whether the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) agreed that Patrick is the 9 proper party to be substituted for Plaintiff in this case. ECF No. 34. In its status report dated 10 October 31, 2024, the SSA agreed Patrick is the proper party to be substituted for Plaintiff. 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides: 12 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of 13 the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after 14 service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Therefore, a motion to substitute under Rule 25(a)(1) requires the 17 Court to consider whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled in the case have been extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper party. Maseda v. Saul, 18 Case No. 1:20-cv-01657, 2021 WL 2268871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2021). 19 Here, the Court previously found the motion to substitute timely. ECF No. 18-3. 20 Accordingly, the Court reaffirms and incorporates by reference its prior analysis. Id. The 21 Court also previously found that Plaintiff’s claims were not extinguished upon her death if 22 Plaintiff died before collecting benefits owed. Id. Given the benefits in this case have not 23 yet been fully paid out by the SSA to the appropriate qualifying relative, Plaintiff’s claims 24 before this Court are not extinguished. Finally, the Court noted that under 20 C.F.R. 25 § 404.503(b)(1), a deceased claimant’s surviving spouse has the highest order of priority 26 for receipt of underpayments if he was living in the same household with the claimant at 27 the time of her death. Id. Patrick supplemented the Motion to Substitute Party with a 1 ||declaration stating that he lived in the same household with Plaintiff at the time of her 2 || death. ECF No. 19-3. Further, in its status report, the SSA agreed that Patrick is the proper 3 || party for substitution and suggested that payment for the claim was released to Patrick on 4 || October 18, 2024. ECF No. 35. 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Patrick 6 Sullivan as a party for deceased Plaintiff Renee Sullivan. The Court further DIRECTS the 4 Clerk of Court to update the docket of this action accordingly. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Dated: November 7, 2024 10 Wioev tH. Kvolanvl 1 Honorable Allison i. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28