Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Phoebe Copas died on March 25, 2025. Uber then served a statement noting her death on six relatives. More than 90 days later, no successor or representative had filed a procedurally compliant motion to substitute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). Copas’s parents had filed two substitution motions, but the court denied both without prejudice because they did not meet the required prerequisites.
The court referred questions concerning service and potential dismissal to Magistrate Judge Miguel Torres. The magistrate judge recommended requiring Uber to establish and serve Copas’s personal representative, found that Uber had properly served the six relatives, concluded that Copas’s claims survived her death, and recommended dismissal once valid service on the personal representative was shown.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge David C. Guaderrama accepted the report and recommendation in part and modified it in part. The court agreed that Rule 25 requires service on the decedent’s personal representative or successor under Rule 4, and found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions that Uber’s service on the six identified relatives was proper and that Copas’s death did not extinguish her claims.
The court declined to move directly to dismissal. It ordered Uber to investigate whether additional heirs exist and whether a personal representative or equivalent successor has been appointed, likely through probate records. If one exists, Uber must serve that person and any additional heirs under Rule 4. If no representative exists, Uber must brief whether the relatives relinquished their right to represent the estate by not opening probate. Uber must file its response by September 23, 2026; the court will then decide whether dismissal is warranted.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 25(a) substitution deadline does not eliminate the need to determine and properly serve the deceased party’s representative or successor.
- Service on relatives may be proper, but the court required further investigation into heirs and any estate representative.
- The court held that Copas’s claims survived her death and reserved dismissal pending Uber’s ordered investigation and response.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the procedural care required after a party dies during federal litigation. A defendant seeking dismissal under Rule 25 must address service on the proper estate representative, not merely notify family members.
It also leaves open an important probate-related question: when no personal representative exists, whether potential heirs have relinquished the ability to pursue the estate’s claims by failing to initiate probate proceedings.