Hagen v. Stenger & Stenger, P.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Randall L. Hagen,
Plaintiff,
v.
Stenger & Stenger, P.C.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2433 (JRT/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Randall L. Hagen filed a Complaint in this matter on June 11, 2025, alleging
Defendant Stenger & Stenger, P.C. had engaged in “improper and illegal debt collection activities.”
(ECF No. 1.) While this litigation was pending, Mr. Hagen unfortunately passed away. (ECF No.
10.) His counsel notified the Court of Mr. Hagen’s death on August 25, 2025. (Id.) The parties
filed a joint motion asking the Court to stay this matter for 90 days or until an appropriate third party
could file a motion to substitute pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF
No. 12.) The Court granted the joint motion. (ECF No. 14.) On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s
former counsel filed a motion to substitute on behalf of Plaintiff’s children. (ECF No. 17.) But
Plaintiff’s children withdrew their motion ten days later (ECF No. 24) and state that they do not wish
to pursue this matter further (ECF No. 26).
Rule 25 authorizes the Court to dismiss an action sua sponte if: (1.) the sole plaintiff dies;
(2.) 90 days pass after a statement noting the plaintiff’s death is served; and (3.) no party files a
motion to substitute. 	Because all three of these conditions have been satisfied here, the Court
recommends that this matter be dismissed. 	“A Rule 25(a)(1) dismissal may be with or without
prejudice.” Sagataw v. Frey, No. 24-cv-1 (ECT/ECW), 2025 WL 3443512, at *6 (D. Minn. Dec. 1,
2025) (citing Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090, 1095 nn.5-6 (9th Cir. 2017)).
CASE 0:25-cv-02433-JRT-DJF Doc. 28 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 2

Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, because the Plaintiff’s former counsel’s letter (ECF No. 26)
indicates Plaintiff’s children, the only third parties who have indicated an interest in substitution,
have no interest in prosecuting this matter further.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Dated: December 12, 2025 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy”
of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-02433-JRT-DJF Doc. 28 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 2