Court Addresses Proper Substitution of Party's Name for John Doe Designation

In the case of Woelfel v. Universal Linx Serv. Inc., No. 2021-CV-1131 (C.P. Leh. Co. June 3, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the court found that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 2005(c) relative to her efforts to replace a John Doe designation in her Complaint with the Defendant’s actual name. 

This matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident during which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by an unknown individual but which vehicle was owned by the Defendant Universal Linx Services, Inc. The Plaintiff had alleged that the driver was an employee of that company.

In an effort to identify the John Doe Defendant, the Plaintiff served Universal Linx with certain discovery requests and Universal identified the driver. 

However, the Plaintiff did not seek leave to amend her Complaint to identify the driver until about six (6) months later. In addition to finding other errors with the Plaintiff’s Motion, the court noted that Pa. R.C.P. 2005(c) requires a party to file a Motion within twenty (20) days of learning the name of a John Doe Defendant within which to request leave to amend the pleading.

Given that the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the requirements for moving to amend the Complaint to replace the John Doe designation with the name of the individual involved, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Here is a LINK to the previous Tort Talk post on the actual "John Doe" Rule of Civil Procedure if you wish to review the same.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 23, 2022).

Federal Court Keeps Case in Federal Court After Plaintiff Joins Defendants In Apparent Attempt to Destroy Diversity

In the case of Testa v. Broomall Operating Company, L.P., No. 2:21-CV-05148-KSM (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2022 Marston, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s Motion to Strike a Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the Case to State Court in a matter arising out of a rehabilitation and nursing home negligence case.

According to the Opinion, it was alleged that the Plaintiff’s decedent passed away after contracting COVID-19 at the facility.

After the suit was filed, the Defendants removed the action to federal court on the grounds of diversity and federal question jurisdiction.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff amended her Complaint as of right and clarified that she was not bringing claims under a Federal act and the Plaintiff additionally added the claims of negligence and wrongful death against individual Defendants. The individual Defendants were residents of Pennsylvania and thereby defeated complete diversity.

In response, the Defendants moved to strike the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff opposed the motion and moved to remand the case back to state court.

The Defendants argued that the joinder of the individual Defendants was impermissible. 

The court exercised its power to review the joinder under F.R.C.P. 21. The court additionally applied federal law and found that, based upon the timing of the filings and Plaintiff’s counsel’s concessions at oral argument, it appeared to the court that the Plaintiff was aware of the identity of the added individual Defendants at the time the case was initiated. 

The court additionally stated that the lack of any “John Doe” Defendants in the original Complaint made it more likely that the individual Defendants were added for the purpose of destroying diversity. 

It was additionally noted that an email Plaintiff’s counsel sent to defense counsel shortly before amending the Complaint supported that theory.

The court additionally restated that the Plaintiff waited over three (3) months from the time she allegedly learned of the individual Defendants’ identities to name them as parties to the action. It was also noted that the Plaintiff did not offer up any legitimate justification for the delay in the joinder.

The court was also influenced by the fact that the Plaintiff would not be prejudice by the absence of the individual Defendants from the lawsuit.

As such, the court found that the applicable factors to be considered weighed in favor of striking the joinder. Accordingly, the court struck the claims brought against the individual Defendants, which restored the complete diversity in the case.

Given that there was complete diversity in the case, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand the case to state court.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Allegations of Recklessness and John/Jane Doe Allegations Allowed To Proceed

 THIS IS THE 300th TORT TALK BLOG POST IN WHICH JUDGE TERRENCE R. NEALON HAS BEEN REFERNCED, MOST OF WHICH BLOG POSTS INVOLVED A SUMMARY OF A JUDICIAL OPINION OF HIS.

In the case of Webb v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company, No. 21-CV-4073 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 10, 2022 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon issued the following notable rulings regarding preliminary objecctions filed by Defendants in a medical malpractice case:

-Overruling preliminary objections to claims of recklessness on the grounds that such claims may be generally pled under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and given that the facts pled in the Plaintiff's Complaint supported such claims in any event;

-Overruling preliminary objections asserting that the Plaintiff's allegations are too vague after finding that the Plaintiff's lengthy Complaint provide the Defendants with adequate notice of the corporate liability, negligence, and recklessness claimss against the Defendants, as well as with respect to the averments regarding the hospital's corporate owner and with respect to the regional hospital system.

-The court also found that the Plaintiff's Jane/John Doe averments in the Complaint satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 2005 in order to properly designate an unknown defendant by a Doe designation.

As such, all of the Defendants Preliminary Objections were overruled.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.

New Rule Pertaining to John Doe Designations in Pleadings Recently Went Into Effect - Pa.R.C.P. 2005

On April 1, 2019, Pa.R.C.P. 2005, which governs the use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” designations in pleadings, took effect.

According to the Comment to the Rule, the Rules of Civil Procedure were silent as to this issue prior to the implementation of Pa.R.C.P. 2005.

The rule allows a plaintiff or a defendant joining party to designate an unknown defendant by use of a Doe designation provided certain conditions are met. Under the Rule, the Doe defendant’s actual name must be unknown to the plaintiff or the defendant joining party after the completion of a reasonable search for the person using due diligence.

According to the Comment, an effort to list as parties, “Defendants John Doe 1-10 is frowned upon.

The Rule also requires a specific allegation in the pleading confirming that the Doe designation is a designation of a fictitious person or entity.  Also included in the pleading must be a factual description of the unknown defendant which must contain sufficient particularity for identification.
 

Moreover, the plaintiff or defendant joining party must aver that a reasonable search to determine the actual name of the Doe defendant has been conducted.

Any named defendant in the action is granted authority under Rule 2005(e) to file Preliminary objections on the grounds of nonconformity with this Rule 2005 by the Plaintiff or on the grounds of prejudice.

The Rule additionally provides that once the actual name of the unknown defendant is determined, the plaintiff or joining party must file a motion to amend the Complaint pursuant to this Rule 2005 and in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1033, by replacing the “Doe” designation with the defendant’s actual name.  Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit explaining the nature and extent of the investigation utilized to determine the Doe defendant’s actual identity and to provide the date that the identity was determined.

Under the Rule, it is also provided that subpoenas in aid of discovery relating to an unknown Defendant may not be issued or served without leave of court.

Rule 2005 also confirms that a judgment may not be entered by the court against an unknown Defendant.

Source:  Article “New Rule of Civil Procedure Governing Unknown Defendants Took Effect April 1, 2019” by Matthew E. Salmasska, Esq. in the PBA’s Civil Litigation Sections Civil Litigation Update Newsletter at p. 13 (Spring, 2019).  See also Pa.R.C.P. 2005.