Phillips v. United States, 26440.

• Decision Date: 14 January 1955
• Docket Number: No. 26440.,26440.
• Citation: 127 F. Supp. 912
• Parties: Clarence PHILLIPS, Libelant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Maritime Commission, Maritime Administration, First Doe, Donaldson Line, Ltd., a corporation, sued herein as Second Doe, and Third Doe, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

127 F. Supp. 912

Clarence PHILLIPS, Libelant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Maritime Commission, Maritime Administration, First Doe, Donaldson Line, Ltd., a corporation, sued herein as Second Doe, and Third Doe, Respondents.

No. 26440.

United States District Court, N. D. California, S. D.

January 14, 1955.

Melvin M. Belli, Ashe & Pinney, San Francisco, Cal., for libelant.

Lillick, Geary, Olson, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent Donaldson Line, Ltd.

OLIVER J. CARTER, Judge.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the first amended libel turns upon whether the practice of suing parties by fictitious names is permissible in an admiralty suit.

One of libelant's proctors sets forth by affidavit that libelant came to his office about three days before the statute of limitations would have become a bar to libelant's suit, and informed him that libelant was injured while working as a stevedore aboard the S. S. Cape Clear; that the first information given to libelant's proctor as to the ownership of that vessel was that the vessel was owned by the United States, but that there might be another vessel of a similar name owned by others; that to avoid further delay the libel was filed originally against the United States, its agencies and other respondents named only by fictitious names. Later it became known that there were in fact two vessels named S. S. Cape Clear, and that the vessel upon which libelant was injured was operated by respondent Donaldson Line, Ltd. A stipulation dismissing as to the United States and its agencies was then filed. Later an amended libel was filed which included the true name of respondent Donaldson Line, Ltd., and which indicated that said respondent had been sued as Second Doe.

Respondent moves to dismiss the first amended libel on the ground that the use of "Doe parties" in admiralty suits is improper and objectionable. The only American case cited by respondent is Town of Hancock v. First National Bank, 1883, 93 N.Y. 82; but that case merely held that a party could not be sued by a fictitious name if his true name was in fact known. A search of the authorities has not revealed any case dealing with the specific problem presented by the case at bar. But there is ample authority for the proposition that admiralty practice is particularly liberal, especially as to the allowance of amendments. In Deupree v. Levinson, 6 Cir., 186 F.2d 297, 303, affirmed 345 U.S. 648, 73 S.Ct. 914, 97 L.Ed. 1319, the court emphasized that:

"Admiralty * * * practice or procedure is extremely liberal and the rules governing such practice are even less technical than those of equity."

The general rule is described in 2 Benedict on Admiralty 557, as follows:

"It has always been the practice in the American admiralty courts to allow every facility to the parties to place fully before the court their whole case and to enable the court to administer substantial justice between the parties * * *. Therefore, on proper cause shown, omissions and deficiencies in pleadings may be supplied and errors and mistakes in practice, in matters of substance as well as of form, may be corrected at any stage of the proceedings, for the furtherance of justice."

Furthermore there is a large element of judicial discretion in the matter of allowing amendments, as shown by the following statement from the opinion in Jacobs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.Del., 31 F.Supp. 595, 596:

"Whether amendments are to be allowed or refused is almost wholly within the discretion of the court. Modern authorities favor allowing amendments to prevent failure of justice, especially where the statute of limitations has run."

And in 2 Benedict on Admiralty 559-560, with reference to the exercise of judicial discretion in the allowance of amendments:

"The whole subject rests entirely in the discretion of the court, as well in relation to the relief to be granted, as to the terms on which it shall be granted, but the court is inclined to invite amendments if at any time a proctor discovers that his pleadings are incorrectly drawn."

In view of the extreme liberality of procedure in admiralty, no objection is seen to the designation of unknown parties by fictitious names. The practice of pleading Doe parties is in common use in many states and has a beneficial use in cases involving a situation similar to the case at bar. If the practice of using Doe parties is not approved by this Court, libelant will be prevented from having his day in court.

It is immaterial that there is no precedent for the procedure followed herein: the power of the district courts to permit new practices in admiralty cases in order to deal adequately with new ...