Why would a John Doe be specified as a plaintiff?


TIA...

like when the DA is suing for wrongful death on behalf of an unidentified
corpse?
"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message
news:30mdc.19851$yk5.16599@newssvr27.news.prodigy. com... Why would a John Doe be specified as a plaintiff? TIA...

like when the DA is suing for wrongful death on behalf of an unidentified
corpse?
"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message
news:30mdc.19851$yk5.16599@newssvr27.news.prodigy. com... Why would a John Doe be specified as a plaintiff? TIA...

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<30mdc.19851$yk5.16599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>... Why would a John Doe be specified as a plaintiff? TIA...

It can also be used where the correct defendant is unknown at the time
of filing of a complaint, but the identity is expected to be reavealed
through the discovery process.
-David

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<30mdc.19851$yk5.16599@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>... Why would a John Doe be specified as a plaintiff? TIA...

It can also be used where the correct defendant is unknown at the time
of filing of a complaint, but the identity is expected to be reavealed
through the discovery process.
-David

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:45:45 GMT, "z" <z@y.x.invalid> in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
Damaging publicity, as when for example, joiningas a plaintiff in a discrimination lawsuitor civil rights lawsuit whena prospective employer's recognition that the personwho would otherwise publicly join the lawsuit mightas a result not hire or promote that person?TIA...

If a plaintiff is suing for such a situation you outlined before*, I see
no way for a plaintiff (assuming a co-plaintiff here with you, if not
just yourself alone) cannot be fully identified. This is part of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 17.

To claim discrimination, under the McDonnell- Douglas decision, the
burden is upon the plaintiff to show (i) that he belongs to a
protected class; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for
which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his
qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the
position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants
from persons of complainant's qualifications.

As you can see, this requires the plaintiff a) identify himself as part
of a protected class, and b) has already been rejected for a past
incident of discrimination against said protected class - NOT a case
where potential alleged discrimination MIGHT occur.

If you are claiming a known harm was done to you that was tangible, and
you must show direct harm came from the teacher's comments in class, you
will still have to identify the plaintiff to show this. If you are
suing under the idea that harm may be done _in the future_,
identification of the plaintiff would still be necessary.

In short, what is the tort NOW? Being told by your professor that your
actions in class indicated some lack in your ability to function as a
teacher, as I recall your scenario. How has this affected you (or any
other plaintiff) tangibly, and why do you think this requires you not be
fully identified?

After all, it is the _plaintiff_ who is claiming some tangible harm was
done and it relates directly to him. So identification is necessary.

* (this appears to be in regards to this poster's previous comment about
being told by his professor that his comments in class indicated some
lack of competence about his ability to teach, _in a classroom session_,
I might add. To all other readers: this is all explained in an old
thread from November 2003 which complained about a teacher supposedly
"campaigning" in class, if you care to check Google/Deja)


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:45:45 GMT, "z" <z@y.x.invalid> in misc.legal,
wrote the following:
Damaging publicity, as when for example, joiningas a plaintiff in a discrimination lawsuitor civil rights lawsuit whena prospective employer's recognition that the personwho would otherwise publicly join the lawsuit mightas a result not hire or promote that person?TIA...

If a plaintiff is suing for such a situation you outlined before*, I see
no way for a plaintiff (assuming a co-plaintiff here with you, if not
just yourself alone) cannot be fully identified. This is part of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Rule 17.

To claim discrimination, under the McDonnell- Douglas decision, the
burden is upon the plaintiff to show (i) that he belongs to a
protected class; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for
which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his
qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the
position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants
from persons of complainant's qualifications.

As you can see, this requires the plaintiff a) identify himself as part
of a protected class, and b) has already been rejected for a past
incident of discrimination against said protected class - NOT a case
where potential alleged discrimination MIGHT occur.

If you are claiming a known harm was done to you that was tangible, and
you must show direct harm came from the teacher's comments in class, you
will still have to identify the plaintiff to show this. If you are
suing under the idea that harm may be done _in the future_,
identification of the plaintiff would still be necessary.

In short, what is the tort NOW? Being told by your professor that your
actions in class indicated some lack in your ability to function as a
teacher, as I recall your scenario. How has this affected you (or any
other plaintiff) tangibly, and why do you think this requires you not be
fully identified?

After all, it is the _plaintiff_ who is claiming some tangible harm was
done and it relates directly to him. So identification is necessary.

* (this appears to be in regards to this poster's previous comment about
being told by his professor that his comments in class indicated some
lack of competence about his ability to teach, _in a classroom session_,
I might add. To all other readers: this is all explained in an old
thread from November 2003 which complained about a teacher supposedly
"campaigning" in class, if you care to check Google/Deja)


--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it would be an action under the Leonard Law, Calif. Civil Code Sections 66300-66301. There's a John Doe listed as a plaintiff in Corry v. Stanford, a Leonard Law action (hence the question): <http://web.archive.org/web/20020707183609/www.law.stanford.edu/library/spec ial/corrycom.shtml>

Thanks for the clarification.

I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a
group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs)
purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John
Doe".

Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no
precedent.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it would be an action under the Leonard Law, Calif. Civil Code Sections 66300-66301. There's a John Doe listed as a plaintiff in Corry v. Stanford, a Leonard Law action (hence the question): <http://web.archive.org/web/20020707183609/www.law.stanford.edu/library/spec ial/corrycom.shtml>

Thanks for the clarification.

I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a
group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs)
purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John
Doe".

Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no
precedent.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

"Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c31fa7b1.0404112152.20aae1e7@posting.google.c om... "z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message
news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it

....
Thanks for the clarification. I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs) purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John Doe".

I did not catch that allusion, at least in the pleading.
Do you happen to know if it was made explicit somewhere?

Hmm, I wonder how this differs from a class action suit.
If your interpretation is correct, then it sounds like it derives
the "benefits" of a class action suit, whatever those might
be, without incurring the delay and possible contention
over representation and the need to offer prospective
represented plaintiffs the option to "opt out."
Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no precedent.

Is this statement true for each and every county?

TIA...

"Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c31fa7b1.0404112152.20aae1e7@posting.google.c om... "z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message
news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it

....
Thanks for the clarification. I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs) purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John Doe".

I did not catch that allusion, at least in the pleading.
Do you happen to know if it was made explicit somewhere?

Hmm, I wonder how this differs from a class action suit.
If your interpretation is correct, then it sounds like it derives
the "benefits" of a class action suit, whatever those might
be, without incurring the delay and possible contention
over representation and the need to offer prospective
represented plaintiffs the option to "opt out."
Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no precedent.

Is this statement true for each and every county?

TIA...

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<7wLec.50969$5_5.39487@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... "Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:c31fa7b1.0404112152.20aae1e7@posting.google.c om... "z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it ... Thanks for the clarification. I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs) purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John Doe". I did not catch that allusion, at least in the pleading. Do you happen to know if it was made explicit somewhere?

It's just a guess on my part. Remember that Corry challenged
(successfully) a policy that had never been invoked. Not even the nine
named plaintiffs had been disciplined.
Hmm, I wonder how this differs from a class action suit. If your interpretation is correct, then it sounds like it derives the "benefits" of a class action suit, whatever those might be, without incurring the delay and possible contention over representation and the need to offer prospective represented plaintiffs the option to "opt out."

Not exactly. The relief sought in Corry was the retraction of a
university discipline policy, not a settlement between the university
and all of the students. The latter would have been a class action,
but Corry was not.

Class-action suits are not do-it-yourself things. It may be useful to
understand why this is so. A class-action suit is binding on everyone
who is a member of the class, including those who may not even know
they should be interested. Because of this, courts do not allow a
private person to pursue a class action: as a pro per, you have no
right to represent the others in court.
Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no precedent. Is this statement true for each and every county? TIA...

To become precedent in California, a decision must be "published".
California Supreme Court decisions are always published. Lower appeals
court decisions (Court of Appeals, appellate divisions of Superior
Court) are not necessarily published. Trial court decisions are not
published, at least not in this sense.

Corry may be persuasive in any court in California, and is well worth
citing in advancing a free-speech argument against university
disciplinary actions or policy, but it would not be precedent
anywhere, not even in Santa Clara County.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

"z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<7wLec.50969$5_5.39487@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... "Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:c31fa7b1.0404112152.20aae1e7@posting.google.c om... "z" <z@y.x.invalid> wrote in message news:<fV8ec.50428$D94.22375@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... Understood, but this is not a slander action, it ... Thanks for the clarification. I think the rationale in Corry was that the suit was brought by a group of students (Corry and the other eight named plaintiffs) purporting to represent all the other students at Stanford as "John Doe". I did not catch that allusion, at least in the pleading. Do you happen to know if it was made explicit somewhere?

It's just a guess on my part. Remember that Corry challenged
(successfully) a policy that had never been invoked. Not even the nine
named plaintiffs had been disciplined.
Hmm, I wonder how this differs from a class action suit. If your interpretation is correct, then it sounds like it derives the "benefits" of a class action suit, whatever those might be, without incurring the delay and possible contention over representation and the need to offer prospective represented plaintiffs the option to "opt out."

Not exactly. The relief sought in Corry was the retraction of a
university discipline policy, not a settlement between the university
and all of the students. The latter would have been a class action,
but Corry was not.

Class-action suits are not do-it-yourself things. It may be useful to
understand why this is so. A class-action suit is binding on everyone
who is a member of the class, including those who may not even know
they should be interested. Because of this, courts do not allow a
private person to pursue a class action: as a pro per, you have no
right to represent the others in court.
Remember that Corry, as an unappealed Superior Court case, is no precedent. Is this statement true for each and every county? TIA...

To become precedent in California, a decision must be "published".
California Supreme Court decisions are always published. Lower appeals
court decisions (Court of Appeals, appellate divisions of Superior
Court) are not necessarily published. Trial court decisions are not
published, at least not in this sense.

Corry may be persuasive in any court in California, and is well worth
citing in advancing a free-speech argument against university
disciplinary actions or policy, but it would not be precedent
anywhere, not even in Santa Clara County.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green