Plaintiff's Motion to Identify and Name Doe Defendants
DEPARTMENT 6 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
Prabhu, LLC Plaintiff’s Motion to Identify and Name Doe Defendants
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to identify and name doe defendants. Alina Mahmood is substituted in place of Doe 3. The Motion is DENIED as to Aditya Mahesh Dhere and Rohit Jiledar Singh since those parties were previously added as Does 1 and 2 respectively on December 3, 2025. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is an intentional infliction of emotional distress case. On March 3, 2025, plaintiff Cody Doan (Plaintiff) filed this action (25PSCV00716) against defendant Jai Prabhu, LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 5, alleging causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress by obstruction of justice, intentional infliction of emotional distress by conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by spoliation. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to identify and name doe defendants. The motion is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
“When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, or the affidavit if the action is commenced by affidavit, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly; provided, that no default or default judgment shall be entered against a defendant so designated, unless it appears that the copy of the summons or other process, or, if there be no summons or process, the copy of the first pleading or notice served upon such defendant bore on the face thereof a notice stating in substance: “To the person served: You are hereby served in the within action (or proceedings) as (or on behalf of) the person sued under the fictitious name of (designating it).”
The certificate or affidavit of service must state the fictitious name under which such defendant was served and the fact that notice of identity was given by endorsement upon the document served as required by this section. The foregoing requirements for entry of a default or default judgment shall be applicable only as to fictitious names designated pursuant to this section and not in the event the plaintiff has sued the defendant by an erroneous name and shall not be applicable to entry of a default or default judgment based upon service, in the manner otherwise provided by law, of an amended pleading, process or notice designating defendant by his true name.” (Code Civ.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Proc., § 474.)
“The phrase “ignorant of the name of a defendant’ is broadly interpreted to mean not only ignorant of the defendant's identity, but also ignorant of the facts giving rise to a cause of action against that defendant. [Citations.]? (San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coal. v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 563, 579.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks an order from the court allowing plaintiff to identify and name certain Doe defendants in this case, specifically Aditya Mahesh Dhere in place of Doe 1, Rohit Jiledar Singh in place of Doe 2, and Alina Mahmood in place of Doe 3. Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff was genuinely ignorant of the true names, identities, and capacities of certain individuals responsible Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion persuasive in part. Plaintiff indicates having been genuinely ignorant of certain parties’ names and their responsibility for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. (Motion, 3:1-6.) The Court finds this sufficient as to Alina Mahmood. However, the Court granted Plaintiff’s prior request to name Aditya Mahesh Dhere and Rohit Jiledar Singh as defendants Doe 1 and 2, respectively, on December 5, 2025. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Aditya Mahesh Dhere in place of Defendant Doe 1 and Rohit Jiledar Singh in place of Doe 2. The Court grants the motion as to Alina Mahmood. (Code Civ. Proc., § 474.) Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES in part.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s motion to identify and name doe defendants. Alina Mahmood is substituted in place of Doe 3. The Motion is DENIED as to Aditya Mahesh Dhere and Rohit Jiledar Singh since those parties were previously added as Does 1 and 2 respectively on December 3, 2025. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
Case Number: 25PSCV01383 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 6 CASE NAME: Saleh Khalil v. Christian Joel Munguia, et al. Motion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS the m otion of Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC to be relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil. Counsel must submit a revised proposed order with the with the future hearing information for the Court’s review and signature within five calendar days of this ruling. Counsel must then serve the signed order upon Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant, and file proof of service of same within five calendar days thereof. Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is an auto accident case. On April 18, 2025, plaintiff Saleh Khalil (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Christian Joel Munguia (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for general negligence and motor vehicle. On April 8, 2026, Malek H. Shraibati of BD&J, PC moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Saleh Khalil. The motion is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.) A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362,