Web Results


A fictitious defendant is a person that cannot be identified by the plaintiff before a lawsuit is commenced. Commonly this person is identified as "John Doe" or " Jane Doe". As the statute of limitations for many torts such as medical malpractice is generally very short, plaintiffs under pressure to issue an originating process ...


JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 100,. JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 10, and. OTHER JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, all whose true names are unknown,. Defendants. COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, Video Professor, Inc. ("VPI"), through counsel, for its complaint against. Defendants, states: 1. NATURE ...


JOHN DOES 1-10;. Defendants. AMERICA ONLINE's COMPLAINT. FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA COMPUTER CRIMES ACT,. THE FEDERAL COMPUTER FRAUD & ABUSE ACT,. AND THE COMMON LAW. Unsolicited bulk e-mail (“UBE”) — known popularly as “spam” — has become a public epidemic. At little or ...


Oct 24, 2010 ... A: "Does", "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" are placeholder name used in legal actions for people whose true identity is unknown or must be withheld for legal reasons. " Does 1-100" being used in a particular case probably means that there are up to 100 additional parties (fictitious defendants) to the legal action ...


Oct 3, 2012 ... Plaintiff has designated all defendants as “John Does” because Plaintiff does not know their identities. The allegations as to all John Does are identical. There are 14 to 22 John Does in each of these cases. Plaintiff asserts that all of the John Does sued in each case reside in this District and are properly.


Jane and John Does 1-10 v. David Daleiden. Whether a Court Properly Enjoined Release of Names and Other Identifying Information Under the Washington Public Records Act. Background|; EPIC's Interest|; Legal Documents|; News ...


In this situation, the business might choose to file a “John Doe” lawsuit, and to do that it must serve the anonymous defendant with process. To accomplish service ..... 11. Krinsky v. Doe 6, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 245–46 (Ct. App. 2008); Solers v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941, 954 (D.C. 2009); In re Does 1–10, 242 S.W.3d 805, 821 (Tex.


In Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Department,45 plaintiff sought to add six named police officers to his suit originally filed against the police depart- ment and “John Doe” officers. The failure to have sued the officers originally was found to be due to lack of knowledge as to their identities and not a mis- take in their names.


against anonymous “Doe defendants”. Adult entertainment companies have been particularly litigious, filing over 100 lawsuits against more than 15,000 defendants in the last year and a half alone. Mass “John Doe” suits are not a new phenomena. The RIAA utilised the same strategy throughout the 2000s with varying.