BOE vs DEACON CORP.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: The “omnibus motion” of plaintiff in pro per “Jon Boe” for “Order to Proceed under Pseudonym” and to “amend complaint to streamline the judicial process” is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action was commenced in 2024 and appears to arise from allegations that the defendant, a construction company, performed construction work on property adjacent to plaintiff’s and caused unspecified harm, or the possibility of harm, to plaintiff’s person

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 04/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Omnibus on Multiple Counts in Department 53

and/or property. A first amended complaint was filed on 6/18/2024 and after the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend, a second amended complaint was filed on 11/12/2024. A month later, plaintiff filed the present “omnibus motion.”

Moving Papers. Plaintiff filed the present so-called “omnibus motion” on 12/19/2024 and by it, he appears to seek an order which permits him to proceed under a pseudonym in order to “protect against potential danger arising frome [sic] public disclosure of their [sic] true natural identity” since “Litigant reasonably believes that if their true name were to be made public, it would and could expose them to such significant personal safety risks that would create mental harm due to a recent report of potential hostility frome [sic] individuals with past grievances.” (Mov. Papers, p.4:1-9.) The subsequent pages proceed to explain why continued use of a pseudonym is warranted under the circumstances.

The moving papers also include a request to “streamline the judicial process by consolidating five counts into one complaint,” as “[t]hese counts—ranging frome [sic] negligence to intentional infliction of emotional distress— arise frome [sic] vibrationinduced damage allegedly caused by the [sic] Deacon’s reckless behaviour [sic].” (Mov. Papers, p.6:7-10.) According to plaintiff, “[a]ddressing all claims simultaneously will minimise [sic] judicial inefficiency and prevent multiplicity of suits, aligning with the honourable [sic] Court’s paramount rule which is the duty to promote and administer justice.” (Id., at p.6:11-14.)

Opposition. Defendant opposes, arguing that plaintiff has failed to provide an adequate justification for refusing to disclose his name and his vague suggestions about threats of physical violence and past grievances do not appear to relate to this litigation. Defendant, however, indicates that because the second amended complaint is legally deficient, it does not oppose plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his complaint.

Discussion

Use of Pseudonym. Code of Civil Procedure §367 requires “[e]very action [to] be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” Plaintiff’s moving papers do not discuss or even cite any “statute” which permits him to proceed in this case under a pseudonym. While the moving papers do cite at Page 4:17-19 the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, this decision does not authorize plaintiff to determine for himself whether or not he may proceed under a fictitious name. Instead, the Third District panel merely concluded there were certain circumstances under which a party may be permitted to use fictitious name and “[b]ecause defendants fail to present any argument as to why plaintiff should not have been permitted to use a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 04/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Omnibus on Multiple Counts in Department 53

fictitious name under the circumstances of this case, we need not consider the issue further.” (Doe, at 765-767 (underline added for emphasis).) Fairly construed, Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District does not stand for the proposition that a plaintiff can unilaterally choose to use a fictitious name when filing suit but rather that the use of a fictitious name is merely permitted in certain circumstances. Moreover, the facts of the present case bear little resemblance to those in Doe v. Lincoln Unified School District and therefore, this precedent is insufficient to justify plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym in the case at bar.

The moving papers also cite at Page 5:24-26 three additional California appellate decisions claimed to support plaintiff’s request to use a fictitious name in this suit. The first decision, cited as Doe v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 220, does not appear to exist as the use of this citation leads to a decision in People v. Von Villas (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 2014, which does not involve any issue relating to a pseudonym. The second decision, Doe v. Saenz (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 960, does not address any question relating to the propriety of the plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name and as such, this decision does not support the relief sought in the case at bar. (See, e.g., People v.

Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 330 [“cases are not authority for propositions not considered”].) The third decision, Doe v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 750, likewise does not include any meaningful discussion of when a pseudonym is justified but the Court of Appeal was instead focused exclusively on whether a plaintiff suing under fictitious name is required to use his/her true name for purposes of verifying discovery responses. Thus, this third decision does not warrant the relief now sought by plaintiff in this “omnibus motion.”

Additionally, the declaration submitted by plaintiff in support of this motion (Mov. Papers, p.8:27-p.10:18) is devoid of specific, concrete facts which could reasonably enable this Court to determine that plaintiff’s use of his true name in this litigation is reasonably likely to result in any future threats or violence against him.

As plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient factual and legal justification for this Court to permit him to prosecute this action under a pseudonym, this part of the present motion shall be denied. Although not necessary to the disposition of this motion, the Court is inclined to agree with the opposition that plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name is this suit will unnecessarily impair defendant’s constitutional rights to due process by being limited in its ability to fully investigate the claims presented in this litigation and to prepare a full and complete defense thereto. Notably, the moving papers indicate that defendant and its counsel are already aware of plaintiff’s true identity (Mov. Papers, p.4:9-10, 27), further militating against plaintiff’s request to proceed under a fictitious name.

Streamlining Judicial Process. This Court finds that the moving papers do not clearly describe the precise nature of the relief being sought by plaintiff and the California Code

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 04/29/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Omnibus on Multiple Counts in Department 53

of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court do not recognize any generalized motion seeking an order which “streamline[s] the judicial process.” Accordingly, plaintiff’s request in this regard shall be denied.

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to obtain leave to amend his operative second amended complaint, this motion shall be denied because (1) the moving papers here fail to comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(a) and (2) this motion is not supported by a declaration which provides the information specified in Rule 3.1324(b). The Court’s ruling in this regard is without prejudice to plaintiff meeting-and-conferring prior to filing, if necessary, a code-complaint motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s “omnibus motion” is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)