Alexander v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
__________________________________________________________________
IN RE: AME CHURCH 	MDL Docket No. 1:22-md-03035-STA-jay
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
FUND LITIGATION 	ALL CASES
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
Plaintiffs have moved pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an
Order substituting Daniel Parish of Parish Law, LLC, in his capacity as the Administrator Ad
Litem of the Estate of Jerome V. Harris in place of party defendant Dr. Jerome V. Harris for all
purposes in this litigation. (ECF No. 1171.) Rule 25 provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim
is not extinguished, the Court may order 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 motion is not
made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the
decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
“A motion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing, must be served on the parties as
provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4. A statement noting death must be
served in the same manner. Service may be made in any judicial district.” Id. 25(a)(3). Plaintiffs
have asked that the Court set a hearing on their motion for substitution so that Plaintiffs may serve
the motion together with a notice of hearing or setting letter on the necessary parties and nonparties
and, thereby, satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.
The purpose of a hearing on a motion to substitute is to resolve any dispute as to the
appropriateness of the proposed substituted party. There does not appear to be any dispute in the
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1101 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 2
PageID <pageID>

present case. Therefore, the Court will not set a hearing date at this time. See, e.g., Stachewicz v.
Certegy Payment Sols., LLC, 2025 WL 3000206, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025), objections
overruled, 2026 WL 86818 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2026) (“Although Rule 25 requires parties to serve
a notice of hearing, it does not confer an absolute right to one. To the contrary, the Civil Local
Rules vest the Court — not the litigants — with discretion to determine whether and when to hold
a hearing.”) After being served, Attorney Parish will have the requisite fourteen days in which to
file a response to the motion and may request a hearing if he deems it advisable. See, e.g., Selendy
Gay PLLC v. Campbell, 2025 WL 3533004, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025) (“The Court cannot
consider the motion to substitute until (i) plaintiff has properly served the motion on Reses, Apfel,
and their counsel, (ii) provided proof of service, and (iii) those parties have had an opportunity to
oppose or otherwise respond.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: April 20, 2026
Case 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay Document 1101 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 2
PageID <pageID>