Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT QUINTANA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. SUBSTITUTE PARTY AS PLAINTIFF 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 50, 15 [Doc. No. 12; 13.] Defendants. 16 17 On January 29, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff Vincent Quintana filed an amended 18 motion to substitute party on behalf of Angelica Quintana Britt (“Ms. Quintana Britt”). 19 (Doc. No. 13.) Ms. Quintana Britt seeks to be substituted as the Plaintiff in this case under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) following Plaintiff’s passing on October 13, 2025. 21 (Doc. No. 13.) Ms. Quintana Britt asserts that she is the proper party to substitute Plaintiff 22 as either the estate’s trustee, sole surviving beneficiary, or personal representative of 23 Plaintiff’s estate. (Doc. No. 13.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion 24 to substitute party.

25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Background 2 On or around July 15, 2022, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries when he slipped 3 and fell on the premises of the Costco retail store located in La Jolla, California. (Doc. No. 4 1, Notice of Removal, ¶ 19.) Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for premises 5 liability and negligence. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks damages 6 for general damages, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of 7 Removal, ¶ 1.) 8 On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff Vincent Quintana commenced this action against 9 Defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”) in the Superior Court of California, County 10 of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff served 11 Defendant with the summons and complaint. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 2–3.) 12 On May 22, 2025, Defendant filed and served its answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 1, 13 Notice of Removal, ¶ 4.) On June 28, 2025, Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses informed 14 Defendant that Plaintiff alleges more than $75,000 in damages against Defendant. (Doc. 15 No. 1, Notice of Removal, ¶ 9.) On July 18, 2025, Defendant removed this action to the 16 Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3), asserting diversity 17 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) 18 On October 13, 2025, Plaintiff Vincent Quintana passed. (Doc. No. 13, Ex. 1.) On 19 January 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Ms. Quintana Britt as Plaintiff. 20 (Doc. No. 12.) On January 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended motion. (Doc. No. 13.) 21 Defendant did not file an opposition. On March 5, 2026, the Court took Ms. Quintana 22 Britt’s motion for substitution under submission. (Doc. No. 17.) 23 24 Discussion 25 I. Legal Standard 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides: 27 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 28 1 any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action 2 by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). A motion to substitute under Rule 25(a)(1) therefore 4 “requires the Court to consider whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled in the 5 case have been extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper party.” 6 Christopher W. v. King, 2025 WL 417936, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2025); Renee S. v. 7 O’Malley, 2024 WL 2980781, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2024). If the requirements of 8 Rule 25(a)(1) are met, “[t]he substituted party steps into the same position as [the] original 9 party.” Hilao v. Est. of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 II. Application 11 Plaintiff argues that substitution of Ms. Quintana Britt is proper because the motion 12 is timely, the cause of action survives Plaintiff’s death under applicable state law and 13 federal procedure rules, and Ms. Quintana Britt is the daughter and legal successor of 14 Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 13.) 15 A. Timeliness 16 Rule 25(a)(1) states that a motion for substitution must be made “within 90 days 17 after service of a statement noting the death.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit 18 has read Rule 25(a)(1) to “require[] two affirmative steps in order to trigger the running of 19 the 90 day period.” Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). First, “a party 20 must formally suggest the death of the party upon the record.” Id. Second, “the suggesting 21 party must serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased 22 with a suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of the motion to 23 substitute.” Id. 24 Ms. Quintana Britt has timely filed this motion for substitution. By attaching the 25 death certificate to the present motion, Ms. Quintana Britt “formally suggest[ed] the death 26 of the party upon the record.” (Doc. No. 13, Ex. 1); Schalow v. San Bernardino County, 27 191 F.3d 461, 461 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the 90-day period began to run when 28 1 Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute). Ms. Quintana Britt’s declaration also establishes that 2 there are no parties who possess a superior right to that of Ms. Quintana Britt and that all 3 other potential successors in interest have either consented to her substitution or waived 4 their interest in the action. (Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica Quintana Britt.) Because the 5 two requirements for Rule 25(a)(1) were satisfied simultaneously with the filing of the 6 motion for substitution, the motion is within the 90-day time frame and thus timely. (Doc. 7 No. 13, Ex. 1.) 8 B. Survival of the Claim 9 Rule 25(a)(1) allows substitution of a party only when a plaintiff’s “claim is not 10 extinguished” by their death. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Furthermore, the law of the forum 11 state determines whether a cause of action survives or is extinguished upon the death of 12 the party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); see also Gutierrez v. Discount Gold Brokers, Inc., 2020 13 WL 7247318, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020). 14 Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and premises liability survive his death. California’s 15 survivorship provisions in Sections 377.20–377.22 of the California Code of Civil 16 Procedure (“Civil Code”) provide that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a cause 17 of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death . . .” Cal. Code 18 Civ. P. §§ 377.20–377.22. Plaintiff brings tort claims arising under California law. (Doc. 19 No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, and 20 loss of earnings against both Defendant and unknown Doe Defendants. (Doc. No. 1, Notice 21 of Removal, Ex. A.) No statutory exceptions apply to Plaintiff’s claims. As a result, 22 Plaintiff’s claims survive his death. 23 C. Proper Party 24 In diversity cases, courts look to state law to determine the “proper party” under 25 Rule 25(a)(1). Fox v. City of Tulare, 2014 WL 897040, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) 26 (citing In re Baycol Products Litig., 616 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 2010)). Under the Civil 27 Code, a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest can move to continue a 28 pending action or proceeding on behalf of the decedent. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 377.31. The 1 || Civil Code elaborates that a “decedent’s successor in interest” is the “beneficiary of the 2 || decedent’s estate” or the “successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action...” Cal. 3 || Code Civ. P. § 377.11. The Civil Code further requires the successor in interest to attest 4 certain affirmative statements in a declaration and to attach the decedent’s death 5 || certificate to the filing. Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 377.32(a)H{c). 6 Ms. Quintana Britt has demonstrated that she is a proper party for substitution. 7 || Vincent Quintana’s last will and testament provides that “any decisions or financial 8 matters” passed to Ms. Quintana Britt. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. 2.) Ms. Quintana Britt asserts 9 || that she is the “sole successor in interest” to this action. (Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica 10 || Quintana Britt.) Ms. Quintana Britt’s attached declaration also satisfies the statutory 11 ||requirements of Civil Code Section 377.32. (Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica Quintana 12 || Britt.) Accordingly, Ms. Quintana Britt is a proper party for substitution. 13 14 Conclusion 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for substitution. 16 ||(Doc. No. 12; Doc. No. 13.) 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATED: March 5, 2026 | | | | | 19 MARILYN L.\HUFF, District 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28