Quinatana v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

1
3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VINCENT QUINTANA,
Plaintiff,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE PARTY AS
PLAINTIFF
[Doc. No. 12; 13.]
On January 29, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff Vincent Quintana filed an amended
motion to substitute party on behalf of Angelica Quintana Britt (“Ms. Quintana Britt”).
(Doc. No. 13.) Ms. Quintana Britt seeks to be substituted as the Plaintiff in this case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) following Plaintiff’s passing on October 13, 2025.
(Doc. No. 13.) Ms. Quintana Britt asserts that she is the proper party to substitute Plaintiff
as either the estate’s trustee, sole surviving beneficiary, or personal representative of
Plaintiff’s estate. (Doc. No. 13.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion
to substitute party.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Background
On or around July 15, 2022, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries when he slipped
and fell on the premises of the Costco retail store located in La Jolla, California. (Doc. No.
1, Notice of Removal, ¶ 19.) 	Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for premises
liability and negligence. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks damages
for general damages, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. 	(Doc. No. 1, Notice of
Removal, ¶ 1.)
On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff Vincent Quintana commenced this action against
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (“Costco”) in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff served
Defendant with the summons and complaint. 	(Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 2–3.)
On May 22, 2025, Defendant filed and served its answer to the complaint. 	(Doc. No. 1,
Notice of Removal, ¶ 4.) On June 28, 2025, Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses informed
Defendant that Plaintiff alleges more than $75,000 in damages against Defendant. (Doc.
No. 1, Notice of Removal, ¶ 9.) On July 18, 2025, Defendant removed this action to the
Southern 	District 	of 	California 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1446(b)(3), 	asserting 	diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1, Notice of Removal.)
On October 13, 2025, Plaintiff Vincent Quintana passed. (Doc. No. 13, Ex. 1.) On
January 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Ms. Quintana Britt as Plaintiff.
(Doc. No. 12.) On January 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended motion. (Doc. No. 13.)
Defendant did not file an opposition. 	On March 5, 2026, the Court took Ms. Quintana
Britt’s motion for substitution under submission. (Doc. No. 17.)
Discussion
I. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides:
If 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
Case 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 under Rule 25(a)(1) therefore
“requires the Court to consider whether: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the claims pled in the
case have been extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper party.”
Christopher W. v. King, 2025 WL 417936, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2025); Renee S. v.
O’Malley, 2024 WL 2980781, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2024). 	If the requirements of
Rule 25(a)(1) are met, “[t]he substituted party steps into the same position as [the] original
party.” Hilao v. Est. of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1996).
II. 	Application
Plaintiff argues that substitution of Ms. Quintana Britt is proper because the motion
is timely, the cause of action survives Plaintiff’s death under applicable state law and
federal procedure rules, and Ms. Quintana Britt is the daughter and legal successor of
Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 13.)
A. Timeliness
Rule 25(a)(1) states that a motion for substitution must be made “within 90 days
after service of a statement noting the death.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit
has read Rule 25(a)(1) to “require[] two affirmative steps in order to trigger the running of
the 90 day period.” Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). First, “a party
must formally suggest the death of the party upon the record.” Id. Second, “the suggesting
party must serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased
with a suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of the motion to
substitute.” Id.
Ms. Quintana Britt has timely filed this motion for substitution. 	By attaching the
death certificate to the present motion, Ms. Quintana Britt “formally suggest[ed] the death
of the party upon the record.” (Doc. No. 13, Ex. 1); Schalow v. San Bernardino County,
191 F.3d 461, 461 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the 90-day period began to run when
Case 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute). Ms. Quintana Britt’s declaration also establishes that
there are no parties who possess a superior right to that of Ms. Quintana Britt and that all
other potential successors in interest have either consented to her substitution or waived
their interest in the action. (Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica Quintana Britt.) Because the
two requirements for Rule 25(a)(1) were satisfied simultaneously with the filing of the
motion for substitution, the motion is within the 90-day time frame and thus timely. (Doc.
No. 13, Ex. 1.)
B. Survival of the Claim
Rule 25(a)(1) allows substitution of a party only when a plaintiff’s “claim is not
extinguished” by their death. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Furthermore, the law of the forum
state determines whether a cause of action survives or is extinguished upon the death of
the party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); see also Gutierrez v. Discount Gold Brokers, Inc., 2020
WL 7247318, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020).
Plaintiff’s claims of negligence and premises liability survive his death. California’s
survivorship provisions in Sections 377.20–377.22 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure (“Civil Code”) provide that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a cause
of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death . . .” Cal. Code
Civ. P. §§ 377.20–377.22. Plaintiff brings tort claims arising under California law. (Doc.
No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A.) Plaintiff seeks general damages, medical expenses, and
loss of earnings against both Defendant and unknown Doe Defendants. (Doc. No. 1, Notice
of Removal, Ex. A.) 	No statutory exceptions apply to Plaintiff’s claims. 	As a result,
Plaintiff’s claims survive his death.
C. Proper Party
In diversity cases, courts look to state law to determine the “proper party” under
Rule 25(a)(1). 	Fox v. City of Tulare, 2014 WL 897040, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014)
(citing In re Baycol Products Litig., 616 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 2010)). Under the Civil
Code, a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest can move to continue a
pending action or proceeding on behalf of the decedent. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 377.31. The
Case 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Civil Code elaborates that a “decedent’s successor in interest” is the “beneficiary of the
decedent’s estate” or the “successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action . . .” Cal.
Code Civ. P. § 377.11. The Civil Code further requires the successor in interest to attest
to certain affirmative statements in a declaration and to attach the decedent’s death
certificate to the filing. Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 377.32(a)–(c).
Ms. Quintana Britt has demonstrated that she is a proper party for substitution.
Vincent Quintana’s last will and testament provides that “any decisions or financial
matters” passed to Ms. Quintana Britt. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. 2.) Ms. Quintana Britt asserts
that she is the “sole successor in interest” to this action. (Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica
Quintana Britt.) 	Ms. Quintana Britt’s attached declaration also satisfies the statutory
requirements of Civil Code Section 377.32. 	(Doc. No. 13, Decl. of Angelica Quintana
Britt.) Accordingly, Ms. Quintana Britt is a proper party for substitution.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for substitution.
(Doc. No. 12; Doc. No. 13.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 5, 2026
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-01845-H-MMP Document 18 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5