Order | Filed: June 26, 2026
| Entered: June 26, 2026
MILLER v. MEANS et al
Civil Rights: Other | New Jersey
Order on Motion to Substitute Party
TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Dion Miller's unopposed motion for substitution of deceased Defendant Vincent Doherty with the executor of his estate, Vincent Doherty, Jr. Dkt. No. 95 ("the Motion"). Where a named party dies during the pendency of a case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 allows the Court to order the substitution of the proper party upon a motion filed by any party or the decedent's "successor or representative." Id. 25(a)(1). Important here, Rule 25 also contains service requirements in order for the Court to properly obtain jurisdiction over nonparties. Id. at 25(a)(3) ("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."). As such, "[w]hen determining whether a party is proper, a court must address whether it has personal jurisdiction over the party to be substituted[;]" here, nonparty Vincent Doherty, Jr. Harley v. Warren, No. 13-cv-7656, 2023 WL 7489989, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2023) (citation modified). Indeed, "[p]ersonal service under Rule 4 serves two purposes: notifying a defendant of the commencement of an action against him and providing a ritual that marks the court's assertion of jurisdiction over the lawsuit." Oklahoma Radio Associates v. F.D.I.C., 969 F.2d 940, 943 (10th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, "where the parties to a lawsuit have failed to serve the motion to substitute and the suggestion of death upon a nonparty--such as a successor or representative of the deceased party's estate--a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over that nonparty." Harley, 2023 WL 7489989, at *3 (quoting Revock v. Cowpet Bay W. Condo. Ass'n, No. 12-cv-0024, 2020 WL 6471017, at *4 (D.V.I. Nov. 3, 2020)); see Giles v. Campbell, 698 F.3d 153, 158 (3d Cir. 2012). Upon review of the Motion, Plaintiff does not indicate that nonparty Vincent Doherty, Jr. was properly served under Rule 4 in accordance with Rule 25(a)(3), therefore the Court cannot establish whether or not it has jurisdiction over him. Further, the Court notes generally that the Motion is lacking supporting legal authority. Thus, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than July 24, 2026, Plaintiff may refile an amended motion addressing the Court's concerns as indicated within this Order. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 6/26/2026. (akw, )