Can I serve a "John/Jane Doe" defendant?

[BigMouthWino]

I am in the begining phase of a civil suit in federal court and service was waived with respect to 3 of the 5 defendants. The two defendants that service wasnt waived on were "John/Jane Doe 1" and "John/Jane Doe 2". I know of specific actions and inactions on thier part, but was unable to ascertain thier identification information. They are both represented by the same counsel as the 3 other defendants, however counsel would not waive service on thier behalf as they "were not identified".

Can I still effect service upon them, through counsel as "John/Jane Doe"'s?

No, you can use the subpoena power that you have acquired through the filing of the lawsuit to acquire their identities. Then you will file an amended complaint substituting their true identities in the place of Does 1 and 2 and serve the amended complaint on all parties.

 

[Anyone2012]

The defendants have filed a MOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claim, so will the defendants be temp exempt from filing an answer to the rule 45 motion to identify the doe defendants until that MOTION to dismiss is rule on?

 

[BigMouthWino]

The defendants have filed a MOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claim, so will the defendants be temp exempt from filing an answer to the rule 45 motion to identify the doe defendants until that MOTION to dismiss is rule on?

The existing defendants could theoretically prevail on a motion to dismiss themselves from your lawsuit and it would still stand against the two Doe defendants until you have reasonable time to ascertain their identity and serve an amended complaint on them. If the other defendants are dismissed with prejudice you will only be able to proceed against the unveiled Doe defendants.

It sounds like you need an attorney to help you effectively prosecute your case, like yesterday.

 

[Anyone2012]

The attorney necessaity has become an issue, i agree. I contacted a few attorneys and they declined to accept it, citing other involvements. I understand that the financial drain and time issues compared to the chance of recovery is a factor. Im still do what i can to find an attorney as we speak, and gather as much info as i can. i spend most of the day in the social law library here in the appelate court, they have awesome materials, and i burn the midnight oil researching. I posted what the summary of my issues in another post, "Pro Se Plaintiff....": feel free to check it out or below is a link to the case docs.


https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B6U0vEARt3MaUXFlMUZWcDN4ek0/edit

 

[BigMouthWino]

The attorney necessaity has become an issue, i agree. I contacted a few attorneys and they declined to accept it, citing other involvements. I understand that the financial drain and time issues compared to the chance of recovery is a factor. Im still do what i can to find an attorney as we speak, and gather as much info as i can. i spend most of the day in the social law library here in the appelate court, they have awesome materials, and i burn the midnight oil researching. I posted what the summary of my issues in another post, "Pro Se Plaintiff....": feel free to check it out or below is a link to the case docs.


https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B6U0vEARt3MaUXFlMUZWcDN4ek0/edit

You will have better luck retaining an attorney to represent you if you pay them an hourly rate instead of expecting them to take on the risk of representing you on a contingency basis.

 

[ecmst12]

Stop starting multiple threads about the same situation!!!

 

[justalayman]

It sounds like you need an attorney to help you effectively prosecute your case, like yesterday.

It sounds like he needs a case to prosecute.

 

[BigMouthWino]

It sounds like he needs a case to prosecute.

Details, details....

 

[latigo]

It sounds like he needs a case to prosecute.

That's what I often feel like telling a plaintiff's attorney. "Are you out of your mind?!"

(But I know better.)

 

[quincy]

You mentioned two on-point cases in MacDonald.T.'s other thread. Have you found case cites for these yet, latigo? Sure would appreciate them. Thanks.

 

[latigo]

You mentioned two on-point cases in MacDonald.T.'s other thread. Have you found case cites for these yet, latigo? Sure would appreciate them. Thanks.

Can't comply. Citations are not available. Both lawsuits were settled short of verdicts via settlement conferences. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

Incidentally, the magistrate that sentenced the 17-year old to serve 3 days for his persistent failure to pay a traffic ticket - wrongfully believing that the boy would be housed in a separate a juvenile detention section of the county jail - promptly retired and left the state. The once popular four-term sheriff did not seek re-election.

The assailants who used the boy's head for a soccer ball where it ended up in the four-inmate cell block's toilet bowl were each convicted and received long, but not long enough, sentences.

The ACLU out of San Francisco sent 5 representatives to talk the parents into letting them handle the lawsuit. But they could not out talk my associate and good friend M. H. from Spokane.

(When M. H. appeared to make a courtroom argument, the word would quickly spread, TV news cameras rolled, and other lawyers, court clerks and law clerks left their offices to sit, watch and listen! And often it was SRO! In action he was literally spell binding! Died of prostate cancer in his early 60’s.)

 

[quincy]

Can't comply. Citations are not available. Both lawsuits were settled short of verdicts via settlement conferences. If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

Incidentally, the magistrate that sentenced the 17-year old to serve 3 days for his persistent failure to pay a traffic ticket - wrongfully believing that the boy would be housed in a separate a juvenile detention section of the county jail - promptly retired and left the state. The once popular four-term sheriff did not seek re-election.

The assailants who used the boy's head for a soccer ball where it ended up in the four-inmate cell block's toilet bowl were each convicted and received long, but not long enough, sentences.

The ACLU out of San Francisco sent 5 representatives to talk the parents into letting them handle the lawsuit. But they could not out talk my associate and good friend M. H. from Spokane.

(When M. H. appeared to make a courtroom argument, the word would quickly spread, TV news cameras rolled, and other lawyers, court clerks and law clerks left their offices to sit, watch and listen! And often it was SRO! In action he was literally spell binding! Died of prostate cancer in his early 60�s.)

You really didn't make it clear. In fact, you mentioned one of the two cases you were involved in was settled and mentioned an award of damages in federal court in the other.

The two cases in your post in MacDonald.T.'s other thread, https://forum.freeadvice.com/other-...eking-advise-direction-civil-suit-584485.html, were the only support you used for an argument you were making. The cases caught both my attention and, more importantly, the attention of MacDonald.T., who could potentially have used these for his own case.

At any rate, your post was very reminiscent of the "proofs" often offered by another forum member when challenged (the "I'm right because I have six neighbors who..." proof).

Finally, if I were to support any argument based solely on an unnamed, uncited case that just happens to have similar facts to what is being discussed, claiming that I know I am right because I was involved personally in the case which I cannot cite for all sorts of reasons, I would certainly hope someone would challenge me on it. Otherwise, anyone here can look to support whatever they say with invented cases of unknown origin.

 

[Willlyjo]

You really didn't make it clear. In fact, you mentioned one of the two cases you were involved in was settled and mentioned an award of damages in federal court in the other.

The two cases in your post in MacDonald.T.'s other thread, https://forum.freeadvice.com/other-...eking-advise-direction-civil-suit-584485.html, were the only support you used for an argument you were making. The cases caught both my attention and, more importantly, the attention of MacDonald.T., who could potentially have used these for his own case.

At any rate, your post was very reminiscent of the "proofs" often offered by another forum member when challenged (the "I'm right because I have six neighbors who..." proof).

Finally, if I were to support any argument based solely on an unnamed, uncited case that just happens to have similar facts to what is being discussed, claiming that I know I am right because I was involved personally in the case which I cannot cite for all sorts of reasons, I would certainly hope someone would challenge me on it. Otherwise, anyone here can look to support whatever they say with invented cases of unknown origin.

This isn't a court of law where you have to cite cases in order to prevail. I can pretty much believe what Latigo is saying based on his posts. He seems intelligent enough and experienced enough (he's a lawyer) that he is believable. Personally, I can relate because I've experienced a couple cases that, as Latigo says, didn't get to a verdict (they settled out of court) and because of that, they couldn't very well be cited as documented cases.

Certainly Macdonald.T. would have liked to have such cases documented so he could potentially cite them, but still, Latigo's experience concerning similar type cases make him an invaluable source for answering questions surrounding such cases, non-the-less.

 

[quincy]

. . . . Personally, I can relate because I've experienced a couple cases. . . .

I know you can relate, Willly.

 

[BigMouthWino]

That's what I often feel like telling a plaintiff's attorney. "Are you out of your mind?!"

(But I know better.)

I enjoy calling up plaintiff's attorneys in the middle of litigation proposing to discuss a settlement. Once I have them on the phone I ask them how they like working for free. I also like to suggest things (such as baby wipes) they could afford to buy were they not so busy working for free. Sometimes I get them frothed up enough they file really stupid motions or requests with the court, then it's sanctions time. Oh, how I love getting sanctions out of a plaintiff's attorney and then asking them how they like paying me to work for free.