Quote:
Originally Posted by Philbo
This does not sound like their reasoning, lawdude. From page 7:
“The plaintiffs have a good faith basis upon which to allege the identify of the person who is John Doe 1…The Plaintiffs, however, are cognizantly refraining from making such an allegaltion against this particular defendant herein until greater information can be gleaned through the discovery process, in recognition of the sensitivity of making such an allegation. If necessary…however, the Plaintiffs are prepared to amend this Complaint and identify John Doe 1 by his legal name…their election to not do so at this time is solely derivative of a desire to be more cautious than required, given the gravity of this matter.”
The picture they paint of John Doe 1 throughout the rest of the complaint line up with numerous points within this thread here, specifically being out of town during a losing session and brushing aside suspicions raised.
To me it seems they are ready to specifically name his as being negligent, just don't want to label him a cheat...yet.
That's not a proper use of Doe pleading, if they are talking about JFK. (Perhaps, again, this underlines that this complaint is basically better viewed as a press release.)
Here's the rule of the statute of limitations as to JFK, a NAMED Defendant:
Quote:
[6:735] Requirements for application of relation back doctrine: For an amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint as to parties named therein by their true names, it must:
— be based on the “same general set of facts” as the original; and
— seek recovery against the same defendants for the “same injuries”; and
— refer to the “same incident”—i.e., the “same accident” caused by the “same offending instrumentality.” [Barrington v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 39 C3d 146, 150, 216 CR 405, 407; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 C4th 383, 408-409, 87 CR2d 453, 471-472; see Pointe San Diego Residential Comm., L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 CA4th 265, 277, 125 CR3d 540, 550—“in applying the relation-back analysis, courts should consider the strong policy in this state that cases should be decided on their merits” (internal quotes omitted)]
In other words, any claim based on the same general set of facts (i.e., the cheating scandal) and which caused the same injuries relates back to the date of filing of the original complaint as to JFK. There's no need (and in fact it is improper) to name him as a Doe. He's pleaded.
And here's California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474, dealing with Doe pleading:
Quote:
When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by affidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly;
Doe pleading is about when you are ignorant of the name of someone who injured you, so you don't name him. But when you do name him, he's not a Doe, and you can relate back any claims arising out of the same facts against that named defendant to the date you filed the Complaint.
If it turns out John Doe 1 was JFK, they were using pleading-as-press release, trying to include a bunch of juicy allegations that they, perhaps, didn't have all the necessary evidence to support, in the pleading anyway.