Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-11/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 FOURTH AMENDED

COMPLAINT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT

VENTURELLI

In the Pretrial Preparation Order filed January 29, 2007, the Court set a February 21,

2007 deadline for plaintiff to substitute any named defendant for a “Doe” defendant. On

February 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a document titled “Substitution/Identification of Doe 1

Defendant for Inclusion in Third Amended Complaint for Damages Pursuant to January 29,

2007 Pre-Trial Preparation Order.” In said document, plaintiff identifies Joespeh Venturelli

(“Venturelli”) as “Doe Defendant 1.”

As set forth in the Court’s September 7, 2006 order, when a plaintiff seeks to

substitute a named defendant for a “Doe” 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 where plaintiff filed amended complaint adding

named defendant and eliminating “Doe” as party), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1186 (1986). 

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 121 Filed 03/12/07 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

2

Here, as noted, plaintiff has not filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to name Venturelli as a

defendant. The Court, however, will afford plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended

Complaint for the limited and sole purpose of adding Venturelli as a defendant, such

amended pleading to be filed no later than March 23, 2007.

Further, because it was the Court’s intent that any amended pleading be filed no

later than February 21, 2007, and in light of the November 9, 2007 non-expert discovery

cutoff, the Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff to serve Venturelli no later than 120 days from

February 21, 2007, specifically, June 21, 2007. If plaintiff has not, by June 28, 2007, filed

proof of such service, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s claims against Venturelli, without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Finally, if any defendant has filed an answer to the Third Amended Complaint and

wishes to rely on such answer as his/her/its response to plaintiff’s Fourth Amended

Complaint, such defendant may file a notice to such effect, in lieu of filing a formal answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 121 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2