Kathy Nguyen v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion for dismissal with prejudice filed by the plaintiff and a named defendant, but noted the motion mistakenly identified a non-party (Ford Motor Company) and failed to address the unnamed 'Doe' defendants. The court denied the motion, instructing the parties to file a corrected motion that properly identifies the parties and specifies the scope of the requested dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice denied“Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice is DENIED. (See Doc. No. 12.)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was defective on its face because it referenced a non-party (Ford Motor Company) rather than the actual defendant (Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC). Furthermore, the motion did not address the 'Doe' defendants, who remain in the case. Denying the motion to allow the parties to correct these procedural errors is the appropriate course of action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the fatal flaw in the motion (naming a non-party) and the incomplete scope (ignoring Doe defendants). It cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent regarding Doe defendants and the Federal Rules regarding service, providing a clear path for the parties to proceed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHY NGUYEN, Case No.: 25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 14 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Plaintiff 18 Kathy Nguyen and Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. (Doc. No. 12.) In the joint 19 motion, “Plaintiff Kathy Nguyen and Defendant Ford Motor Company request a Court 20 Order to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ford Motor Company with 21 Prejudice.” (Id. (emphasis added).) 22 However, Ford Motor Company is not a party to this action. The parties presumably 23 meant to identify Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, as the defendant joining the motion to 24 dismiss. The Court will leave it to the parties to verify whether that is what they meant. 25 Additionally, the Court notes that the joint motion only seeks to dismiss the claims 26 against a named defendant. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint and the caption to the joint 27 motion both identify “DOES 1 to 10” as defendants in this action. (Doc. Nos. 1-3; 12.) 28 Plaintiff does not allege that any specific Doe Defendant engaged in any particular activity 1 ||to support a claim against any individual Doe Defendant. (See generally Doc. No. 1-3.) 2 ||Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Defendants “are sued pursuant to Code of Civil 3 ||Procedure section 474, and are each independently, or as a representative of another 4 || defendant in this suit, responsible in some manner for the causes of action set forth herein 5 the damages sustained by Plaintiff.” Ud. 43.) 6 Generally, “the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie 7 || v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Although plaintiffs may have an opportunity 8 pursue discovery to identify the unknown alleged defendants, a court may dismiss Doe 9 || Defendants if “it is clear that discovery would not uncover the[ir] identities, or that the 10 |}complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Jd. Absent good cause, a court may 11 dismiss unnamed defendants who have not been served within 90 days of the filing of the 12 || Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It does not appear that Plaintiff has served any of the Doe 13 || Defendants at this time. 14 Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice is DENIED. (See Doc. 15 ||No. 12.) The parties may file a joint motion that identifies correctly the parties seeking 16 dismissal. The parties should also indicate if such a motion is intended to dismiss only the 17 claims against the named defendant, or the action as a whole. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 23, 2026 Q 20 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28