Defendants also attached several documents downloaded from the website for the Wyoming Secretary of State's Office and an affidavit from defense counsel's legal assistant concerning the downloaded documents and her contact with the Secretary of State's Office.[¶9] On November 23, 2015, three days following the filing of Defendants' motion to dismiss, Trefren Construction filed a Motion for Substitution of Party pursuant to W. The Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren now wishes to proceed with the above captioned case as successor to Trefren Construction Co.* * * *WHEREFORE, Movant prays that The Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren be substituted in place and stead of the original plaintiff Trefren Construction Co. was operated by my father as a Wyoming corporation and indicated such to counsel for Trefren Construction Co.5. had been operated as a Wyoming corporation in the past and believed that it was still operated as a Wyoming corporation at the time this case was filed.6. Ed.2d 415 (2005) ( Rule 17(a) addresses party joinder not subject matter jurisdiction); K-B Trucking Co. [¶38] Having concluded that neither Rule 17(a) nor jurisdictional limits necessarily mandated dismissal of Trefren Construction's complaint, we must next address whether the district court erred in denying Trefren Construction's motion to substitute the real party in interest.as the named plaintiff herein.[¶10] Defendants opposed the motion to substitute the Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren (the Estate) as plaintiff, arguing Rule 25(a) did not apply because no party to the action had died. I was unaware of any change to the status of Trefren Construction Co. It is our resolution of that question that will determine whether the complaint was in the end properly dismissed.As such, the Defendants respectfully request that the matter be dismissed.* * * *12. 25(a), which rule governs substitutions upon the death of a party. At the time this case was filed, the original named plaintiff was Trefren Construction Co., which, according to The Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren was held as a sole proprietorship by Timothy Nelson Trefren.2. As a result of the death of Timothy Nelson Trefren, the original named plaintiff Trefren Construction Co. Trefren was also a manager of the business and handled all of the “office” work, including the licenses, permits and taxes for the business.3. and handled aspects of the “field” work for the business.4. 1985) (“The real party in interest defense may be waived if it is not timely raised.”).[¶37] For these reasons, we hold that the real party in interest requirement is not jurisdictional.If the Court does not dismiss this matter, in the alternative, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court vacate the current scheduling order and trial date immediately until additional briefing can be done on this matter.[¶8] Defendants attached to their motion to dismiss the relevant page of Trefren Construction's complaint and the signature pages of the parties' contracts, which contracts had been attached to the complaint. was transferred to The Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren.4. At the time the above-captioned case was filed, I believed Trefren Construction Co. To the extent our cases hold otherwise, they are hereby overruled. On May 15, 2014, it again submitted a billing to V&R for these amounts, and on July 30, 2014, its counsel sent a demand letter to both Cocca and V&R for the amounts owing. On June 30, 2013, V&R entered into another subcontract with Trefren Construction, by which it agreed to pay Trefren Construction 5,000.00 for erection of an approximately 36,000 square foot pre-engineered metal building on the site.[¶5] In October and November 2013, Trefren Construction billed V&R for amounts still owing on both the site preparation/excavation contract and the building erection contract.Specifically, Defendants asserted Trefren Construction, Inc. became inactive in 2003, Trefren Construction Company, Inc.dissolved in 1986 and again in 1997.[¶7] Based on this information, Defendants further asserted (citations to exhibits omitted):4.
In accordance with that schedule, Trefren Construction filed a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Trefren Construction argued that whether viewed singularly or in combination, Rules 17(a), 21, 25 and 15(a) “readily allow the substitution of The Estate of Timothy N. After a long battle with cancer and illness, my father, Timothy N. Following his death, Defendants in this case as well as counsel for Defendants, were provided notice of and acknowledged my father's death. Following my father's death and after my father's estate was submitted to probate in In the Matter of the Estate of Timothy Nelson Trefren, PR-2015-31-DC (2015), counsel for my father's Estate explained to me that my father had operated Trefren Construction Co. If we find the substitution should have been permitted, that substitution will cure the complaint's defect, making dismissal improper.2. In turn, V&R, on May 31, 2013, entered into a subcontract with Trefren Construction, by which it agreed to pay Trefren Construction 8,850.00 to complete site preparation and excavation for the project. Stepans of Meyer, Shaffer & Stepans, PLLP, Wilson, WY. Trefren Construction was based in Thayne, Wyoming, and was managed by Timothy N. Cocca entered into a contract with V&R, by which V&R was to act as general contractor in the construction of the Shopko building.The Dinamika Room, which can accommodate up to 99 people, is also accessible from the outside and has a splendid view of the lake and a path through the hanging gardens.The 3 other rooms, all with natural light, are available for events from 4 to 50 people.Additionally, the “alleged plaintiff” is not a recognized entity under Wyoming law and has no statutory authority to sue in the State of Wyoming.8.