Elysa Fenenbock and Lauren Fenenbock v. W. Silver Recycling, Inc., Lane Gaddy and Weston Gaddy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in the context of inmate litigation, the state 28 attorney general must at the very least identify the decedent’s proper successor or 1 representative
• concluding that “we require, at a minimum, identification of [the deceased defendant]s successor or personal representative by [d]efendants, given that they were much better suited than [the plaintiff] to identify the proper parties.”
• holding that it 8 || was error to place the burden on a pro se prisoner plaintiff to identify decedent’s successor 9 || or personal representative and that Rule 25(a)’s 90-day requirement for substitution was 10 || not triggered
• holding suggesting party must serve suggestion of death on nonparty successor to trigger ninety-day period
• stating that the purpose of Rule 25(a) is 11 “to preserve parties’ rights and causes of action when a party dies”
• showing of good cause or extraordinary 13 circumstances not necessary to withdraw magistrate judge consent 14 before all parties have consented

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).