Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois overruled Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC’s objection to the magistrate judge’s order substituting John Stachewicz for the deceased plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a). The court held that the magistrate judge’s substitution decision was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and that production of the decedent’s will further supported John Stachewicz’s status as the proper party. The court denied the pending class-certification and summary-judgment motions without prejudice to renewal, authorized the parties to seek reopening of discovery, and referred the case for further proceedings.
Holdings
- The magistrate judge's order substituting John Stachewicz as plaintiff was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
- The court denied Certegy's request to hold the substitution order in abeyance. Any additional discovery concerning John's competence could proceed in the ordinary course under Rule 17(c) and did not justify undoing or suspending the substitution order.
- The plaintiff's motion for class certification and the defendant's motion for summary judgment were denied with leave to renew; related sealed filings and the motion to strike were rendered moot.
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's order substituting John Stachewicz as plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
- Whether the district court should hold the substitution order in abeyance to permit discovery into John's status, competence, and capacity.
- What effect the substitution and anticipated additional discovery should have on the pending motions for class certification and summary judgment.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Rodriguez v. City of Chi., 429 F. Supp. 3d 537, 540 (N.D. Ill. 2019)(followed)
- Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943-44 (7th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Stueve Constr., LLC v. Weber Plumbing and Heating, Inc., No. 19-CV-2072, 2021 WL 3032665, at *2 (C.D. Ill. July 19, 2021)(followed)
- Henry v. Centeno, No. 10 C 6364, 2011 WL 3796749, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2011)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.