Gustavo Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department
878 F.3d 1008
11th Cir.2017Background
- In 2016 Gustavo Adolfo Lizarazo sued correctional officers and county defendants alleging excessive force suffered while detained; he died on November 17, 2016.
- Defendants filed a Suggestion of Death on November 22, 2016, and served Lizarazo’s father (a potential personal representative) on November 29, 2016.
- On December 29, 2016, the district court entered a 90-day stay, ordered monthly status reports, and stated the case would be reopened “if a proper motion is made within 90 days hereof.”
- Lizarazo’s counsel filed status reports; counsel moved on March 13, 2017 to extend the stay seven days so substitution could follow the probate hearing, and on March 28, 2017 to reopen the case and substitute the father (appointment occurred April 3; letters filed April 5).
- Defendants argued the Rule 25(a)(1) 90-day substitution period began on November 29 and expired in late February 2017; the district court construed Rule 25 as mandatory and denied the motions as untimely, finding no excusable neglect.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the district court misapplied the Rules: Rule 6(b) permits extension of Rule 25’s 90-day period and the court must on remand consider whether its December 29 order extended the deadline or whether excusable neglect applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could extend Rule 25’s 90-day substitution period | Lizarazo: the district court’s December 29 stay (and Rule 6) allowed extending the Rule 25 deadline; motions filed in March were timely or should be extended | Defendants: Rule 25’s text is mandatory—if no substitution within 90 days after service of suggestion of death, action must be dismissed; the stay order did not extend the Rule 25 clock | The court held Rule 6(b) permits courts to extend Rule 25’s 90-day period; the district court erred by treating the deadline as non‑extendable and must reconsider on remand |
| Whether the December 29 stay operated to extend the Rule 25 deadline to March 29, 2017 | Lizarazo: the stay’s language that case would reopen if a motion filed "within 90 days hereof" extended the 90‑day period | Defendants: service on Nov 29 started the Rule 25 clock, so the stay wording did not alter the statutory timing | The court directed the district court to determine on remand whether its stay order effectively extended the Rule 25 period; if so, March motions were timely |
| If the Rule 25 period was not extended, whether late filings can be excused | Lizarazo: court’s stay language and procedural ambiguity justify finding excusable neglect | Defendants: no excusable neglect; substitution deadline already passed | The court instructed the district court to assess excusable neglect under Pioneer if the stay did not extend the deadline; ambiguity in court notices can favor excusable neglect |
| Standard of review/error | Lizarazo: district court should have applied Rule 6(b) and good‑cause/excusable‑neglect standards rather than mandatory dismissal | Defendants: ninety‑day rule is mandatory and dismissal required | The Eleventh Circuit reversed for misapplication of law (de novo review of rule interpretation) and remanded for proper application of Rule 6(b) and Pioneer factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Vencor Hosps., Inc. v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 279 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for district court’s interpretation of Federal Rules)
- Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 77 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion where incorrect legal standard applied)
- Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2017) (Rule 25’s 90‑day period may be extended under Rule 6)
- Continental Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1993) (recognizing Rule 6 extension of Rule 25 deadline)
- McSurely v. McClellan, 753 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Rule 25 extensions acknowledged)
- Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co., 359 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1966) (history of 1963 amendment shows 90‑day rule not meant to bar meritorious actions)
- Horenkamp v. Van Winkle and Co., 402 F.3d 1129 (11th Cir. 2005) (Advisory Committee Notes carry persuasive weight in interpreting rules)
- United States v. Miller Bros. Const. Co., 505 F.2d 1031 (10th Cir. 1974) (motions to extend time under Rule 6 should be liberally granted absent bad faith or undue prejudice)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (test for "excusable neglect" in late‑filing contexts)
- Rende v. Kay, 415 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (discussing pre‑1963 Rule 25 two‑year, non‑extendable rule)