Giles v. Campbell, 698 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2012). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 addresses what happens when a party dies during the pendency of a case. Plaintiff, a Delaware prisoner, brought excessive force claims against corrections officers, including defendant Campbell. In 2004, Campbell and some other defendants were granted summary judgment. After a trial resulted in a verdict for the remaining defendants, plaintiff appealed and the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial. Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2009). On the remand, the government, which had been representing Campbell, filed what is known as a suggestion of death, advising the court and the parties that Campbell had died in 2006. Plaintiff moved under Rule 25 to substitute the administratrix of Campbell’s estate. But neither the suggestion of death nor the motion to substitute was served on the estate.
The district court ruled that plaintiff’s claim against Campbell was no longer pending. Therefore, the motion to substitute was denied. After losing at trial against the other defendants, plaintiff appealed the ruling as to Campbell. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded in an opinion by Judge Chagares.
Rule 25(a)(1) states that “[i]f a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party.” The question of whether the claim is extinguished is governed by state law. Under Delaware law, plaintiff’s claim against Campbell had to have been “pending” when Campbell died. The district court found that the claim was not pending because summary judgment for Campbell had been granted and plaintiff had not yet obtained the reversal of that summary judgment when Campbell died. Judge Chagares disagreed. Plaintiff could not have appealed as of right, since the summary judgment did not dispose of all issues and all parties. Plaintiff was not required to have sought interlocutory review in order for the matter to be considered still “pending.” Since plaintiff appealed “at the earliest moment he could,” and never gave up his claim against Campbell, the claim was “pending” when Campbell died and it was not extinguished.
However, Judge Chagares concluded that there was no personal jurisdiction over the estate. Rule 25(a)(3) required that both the suggestion of death and the motion to substitute be served on the estate. But neither document had been served on the estate. The panel vacated the denial of the motion to substitute and remanded for plaintiff to have the opportunity to re-file that motion and to serve the estate.