§10.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§10.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

Washington and federal authorities on CR 10 are discussed below.

(1) Washington

A letter containing the name of the court, title of action, file number, identification of the nature of the paper, and a request for specific relief satisfies the requirements of CR 10(a). Colo. Nat'l Bank of Denver v. Merlino, 35 Wn.App. 610, 668 P.2d 1304, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1032 (1983).

A plaintiff may file a complaint under a fictitious name when doing so is justified by privacy concerns. Doe I v. Wash. State Patrol, 80 Wn.App. 296, 908 P.2d 914 (1996).

Both husband and wife are necessary parties in actions concerning community real property. Lownsdale v. Gray's Harbor Boom Co., 21 Wash. 542, 58 P. 663 (1899).

CR 10(a)(2), which allows unknown defendants to be named in the complaint, must be read in conjunction with CR 15(c). Kiehn v. Nelsen's Tire Co., 45 Wn.App. 291, 724 P.2d 434 (1986), review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1021 (1987).

Civil rules, including CR 10, CR 15, and CR 19, apply to an appeal from a decision of the Boundary Review Board. Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wn.2d 820, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995).

Failure to timely object to violation of a procedural rule usually waives the issue. Dearborn Lumber Co. v. Upton Enters., Inc., 34 Wn.App. 490, 662 P.2d 76 (1983).

When allegations in a pleading conflict with an annexed exhibit, the exhibit controls. Nichols v. Severtsen, 39 Wn.2d 836, 239 P.2d 349 (1951).

A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading must be annexed to it. Mosbrucker v. Greenfield Implement, Inc., 54 Wn.App. 647, 774 P.2d 1267 (1989).

A party cannot incorporate a trial court brief into an appellate brief by reference. Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn.App. 533, 954 P.2d 290, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1015 (1998).

The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument made solely by reference to an appellate brief filed in another case. Story v. Shelter Bay Co., 52 Wn.App. 334, 760 P.2d 368 (1988).

Photographs incorporated by reference in a complaint are part of that complaint. Gregory v. City of Seattle, 32 Wn.2d 710, 203 P.2d 340 (1949).

A plaintiff can toll the period for suing a fictitious or "John Doe" defendant by timely filing and serving a named defendant and by identifying the unnamed defendant with "reasonable particularity" before the period for filing suit expires. Bresina v. Ace Paving Co., 89 Wn.App. 277, 280, 948 P.2d 870 (1997), review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1010 (1998).

Service on one named defendant will not toll the statute of limitations for unnamed, unidentified "John Doe" defendants under RCW 4.16.170. Iwai v. State, 76 Wn.App. 308, 884 P.2d 936 (1994), aff'd on other grounds, 129 Wn.2d 84 (1996).

CR 10 is not jurisdictional and does not govern the content of a summons. A petitioner's failure to name a necessary party in the caption of its land use petition does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction over the omitted party when the omitted party is identified in the complaint and has been properly served. Qual. Rock Prods., Inc. v. Thurston County, 126 Wn.App. 250, 108 P.3d 805 (2005).

(2) Federal

In exceptional cases, a plaintiff's privacy concerns can override the requirement that all parties be named in the complaint. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992).

Factors for and against letting a plaintiff use a fictitious name include the extent to which the plaintiff's identity has previously been kept confidential, the plaintiff's reasons for avoiding disclosure, the public's interest in knowing or not knowing the plaintiff's identity, and the presence or absence of ulterior illegitimate motives for seeking confidentiality. Doe v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 176 F.R.D. 464 (E.D. Pa. 1997).

When a plaintiff can proceed under a pseudonym is thoroughly discussed in Rowe v. Burton, 884 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Alaska 1994), appeal dismissed, 85 F.3d 635 (1996).

Fictitious name pleadings may prevent removal of a case to federal court. Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1985).

Fictitious name pleadings can cause jurisdictional problems in diversity cases. Lopez v. Gen. Motors Corp., 697 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1983).

A wrongful death complaint designating defendant as "The United States of America Federal Aviation Administration," but referring in the body of the complaint to defendant as an agency of the government of the United...