Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patrick Collins, Inc v. Does 1-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California


November 15, 2011

PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DOES 1-2,590,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO QUASH(IP ADDRESS 68.192.118.56) DISMISS

Docket No. 29

On November 14, 2011, an anonymous defendant noticed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which names only Doe defendants. The litigant identifies himself or herself only as "John Doe" at I.P. Address 68.192.118.56. Dkt. No. 29. Because John Doe has disclosed no identifying 15 information, there is no way to determine whether the motion was filed by a real party in interest or D 16 a stranger to the litigation. As such, the filing is improper. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Dkt. Nos. 29.

If John Doe wishes to appear in this action anonymously or otherwise, he or she must follow 19 the proper procedures for doing so. At a minimum, the Court and the parties must be informed of 20 the litigant's identity. If the litigant wishes to protect his or her identity from the public, the litigant 21 may use a pseudonym in public filings only after receiving permission for good cause shown. 22 Defendant is advised that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals allows the use of pseudonyms only in 23 the most unusual cases. See, e.g., Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 24 1067--68 (9th Cir. 2000). 25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111115

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.