Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01209/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01209-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND P. MARIOLLE

Plaintiff,

 v.

VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

REGINA LYNN MARIOLLE

Plaintiff,

 v.

VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-09-1209 MMC

No. C-09-4250 MMC

ORDER STRIKING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DOE 1 AMENDMENT AND

DOE 2 AMENDMENT FILED IN CIVIL

CASE NO. 09-1209 

By order filed May 11, 2010, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to, inter alia,

afford each plaintiff leave to amend his or her respective pleading, and set a deadline of

May 21, 2010 for each plaintiff to file any such amended pleading.

On May 14, 2010, plaintiff Raymond P. Mariolle filed two documents, one such filing

titled “Doe 1 Amendment to Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages,” by which he

Case 3:09-cv-01209-MMC Document 46 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

To date, Regina Lynn Mariolle has not taken any steps to amend her First Amended

Complaint.

2

purports to amend his complaint to substitute Wittke Waste Equipment in place of “Doe 1,”

and the other titled “Doe 2 Amendment to Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages,”

by which he purports to amend his complaint to substitute Labrie Environmental Group in

place of “Doe 2.”1

In federal court, “[a]s a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is

not favored.” See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F. 2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Even where a

defendant is identified as a “Doe,” when the plaintiff thereafter seeks to substitute a named

defendant, the preferred practice is the filing of an amended complaint adding the new

defendant and deleting the “Doe” defendant. See, e.g., Lindley v. General Elec. Co., 780

F. 2d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir.) (holding plaintiff properly substituted named defendant for

“Doe” defendant where plaintiff filed amended complaint adding named defendant and

eliminating “Doe” as party), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). In accordance therewith,

the Court’s May 11, 2010 Order provides for the filing of an “amended complaint.” (See

Order, filed May 11, 2010, at 3.) Plaintiff Raymond P. Mariolle, however, has attempted to

add new parties by the unauthorized means of filing an “amendment to” his complaint.

Accordingly, “Doe 1 Amendment to Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages”

and “Doe 2 Amendment to Complaint for Personal Injuries and Damages” are hereby

STRICKEN, without prejudice to Raymond P. Mariolle’s filing a First Amended Complaint

no later than May 21, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01209-MMC Document 46 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 2