Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIANA MUSSELMAN, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2306 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT; ORDER RE:

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Notice of Errata Re Named Defendants and Doe

Defendants Listed in First Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, Attorney’s

Fees, Litigation Fees, and Jury Demand,” filed September 1, 2006. By said document,

plaintiff appears to be asserting the Clerk of the Court has not listed the correct names of

all defendants, and, additionally, appears to be attempting to amend the First Amended

Complaint to add at least eight new defendants by purporting to substitute such defendants

for “Doe” defendants referenced in the First Amended Complaint.

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 properly identified as a “Doe,” when the plaintiff thereafter seeks to substitute

a named defendant, the plaintiff must file an amended complaint to add the new defendant

and delete the “Doe” defendant. See, e.g., Lindley v. General Elec. Co., 780 F. 2d 797,

801 (9th Cir.) (holding plaintiff properly substituted named defendant for “Doe” defendant

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 49 Filed 09/07/06 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

If, following the filing of any such Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff remains of

the view that the docket does not correctly reflect the names of each of the defendants

named therein, plaintiff may file a brief notice to that effect.

2

To date, the only defendant that has filed a notice of appearance is Airon Corp.

2

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

party), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). Here, as noted, plaintiff appears to be

attempting to add new parties by the unauthorized means of filing the above-referenced

Notice of Errata. The Court, however, will afford plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended

Complaint for the limited and sole purpose of adding the new defendants identified in the

Notice of Errata, such amended pleading to be filed no later than September 22, 2006. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (providing that after plaintiff has amended once as of right,

plaintiff must obtain leave of court, or consent of defendants, to amend).1

Additionally, before the Court is plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining

Order and OSC Re: Preliminary Injunction, filed August 11, 2006 (“Application”). The Court

has taken no action on the Application in light of plaintiff’s Case Management Statement

filed August 14, 2006, wherein plaintiff set forth its intention to serve all defendants with

notice of said Application. It now appears plaintiff has served most, if not all, of the named

defendants. If and when plaintiff wishes the Application to be heard, plaintiff shall notice

the matter for hearing on the Court’s calendar, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2. See Civil

L.R. 7-2(a) (providing motion shall be noticed for hearing not less than 35 days after service

of motion). In that regard, the Court hereby informs the parties of the Court’s unavailability

from September 11, 2006 through and including September 22, 2006.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to serve, no later than September 11, 2006, a copy of

this order on each defendant who has been served with process and who has not yet

appeared herein.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 49 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2