Thomas J. Schoenbeck v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court received a submission from the plaintiff's spouse notifying the court of the plaintiff's death and requesting a temporary stay to allow for party substitution. The court construed the filing as a suggestion of death under Rule 25(a)(1), triggered the 90-day substitution period, and denied the motion to stay without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Temporary Stay Proceedings and Defer Ruling Following Plaintiff’s Death denied without prejudice“The Court DENIES the motion to stay [ECF No. 110] without prejudice to refiling by a proper party.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the filing constituted a suggestion of death under Rule 25(a)(1) and that the 90-day period for substitution had begun. Because the plaintiff is deceased, the spouse lacks standing to maintain the action or request a stay in her own name; the proper procedural mechanism is for a successor or representative to file a motion for substitution. Denying the stay without prejudice is the appropriate procedural step to allow the estate or proper representative to intervene within the statutory timeframe. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Rule 25(a)(1) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Barlow) to determine that the filing satisfied the requirements for a suggestion of death, thereby triggering the 90-day substitution clock. The court correctly notes that the spouse is not a proper party to maintain the action or seek a stay in her own right, making the denial without prejudice the correct procedural outcome to allow for proper substitution by a representative.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS J. SCHOENBECK, Case No.: 23-cv-1635-RSH-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY 13 v. [ECF No. 110] 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On July 19, 2026, the Court received a submission from Plaintiff’s spouse, Dr. Ava 20 Grace, entitled “Motion to Temporary Stay Proceedings and Defer Ruling Following 21 Plaintiff’s Death.” ECF No. 110. The filing notifies the Court that Plaintiff died on July 10, 22 2026 and requests a temporary stay of proceedings to permit the substitution of a proper 23 party. Id. at 3–4. The Court construes Dr. Grace’s submission as a suggestion of death on 24 the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). 25 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 establishes the process for moving forward after 26 a party to a civil action has died.” De Los Reyes v. Walmart, Inc., No. 24-CV-1319 JLS 27 (KSC), 2025 WL 1908327, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2025); see Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 28 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). 1 Under Rule 25(a)(1): 2 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order 3 substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If the 4 motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting 5 the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Rule 25(a)(1) “requires two affirmative steps in order to trigger 7 the running of the 90 day period.” Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. “First, a party must formally 8 suggest the death of the party upon the record.” Id. “Second, the suggesting party must 9 serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased with a 10 suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of the motion to substitute.” 11 Id. Specifically, the suggestion of death “must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 12 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3). 13 Dr. Grace’s submission specifically requests that the Court “[t]ake notice that 14 Plaintiff Thomas J. Schoenbeck passed away on July 10, 2026.” ECF No. 110 at 3. The 15 Court therefore construes the filing as a suggestion of death under Rule 25(a)(1). Jackson 16 v. Rowlett, No. CIV S-04-0741 DFLDAD, 2007 WL 397114, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 17 2007) (“Rule 25’s sole requirement concerning the content of a suggestion of death on the 18 record is that it must contain a statement of the fact of the death.”) (internal quotation marks 19 omitted). Because Dr. Grace herself filed the submission, the Court concludes the filing 20 and service requirements necessary to trigger Rule 25(a)(1)’s ninety-day substitution 21 period therefore have been satisfied. Accordingly, the ninety-day period was triggered on 22 July 19, 2026. Because the ninety-day substitution period was triggered on July 19, 2026, 23 any motion for substitution must be filed by October 19, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Court DENIES the motion to stay [ECF No. 110] without prejudice to refiling 2 || by a proper party. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 27, 2026 ‘ 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28