Roth v. Davis
Citation | 231 F.2d 681 |
Decision Date | 05 January 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 14713.,14713. |
Parties | Bessie ROTH, Appellant, v. Sammy DAVIS, Jr., Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Vivian M. Feld, William Jerome Pollack, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Hulen C. Callaway, John S. Bolton, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and WALSH, District Judge.
The title to this action for personal injuries originally read as follows:
"Bessie Roth Plaintiff vs "Will Mastin Trio, Sammy Davis, Jr., Sammy Davis, Will Mastin, Doe I-X Defendants."
The allegations relating to defendants read:
The complaint proceeds to set up the particulars of an automobile accident which is claimed to be the result of the carelessness and negligence of "defendants, and each of them."
No fictitious defendant named as "Doe I-X" was ever served and no one of them appeared in the action. The case was tried before a jury as to defendant Sammy Davis, Jr. There is no contention that the evidence showed a shadow of liability as to any other than this defendant. The verdict returned by the jury was in favor of Sammy Davis, Jr.
Plaintiff appealed. The sole point of the appeal, as stated by attorneys for plaintiff in their opening brief, is as follows:
"Where a Complaint Names Certain Unknown Defendants (Does) and Alleges That Said Unknown Defendants Are Citizens and Residents of the Same State as the Known, Named Defendants, Which State of Citizenship and Residence Is Diverse From That of Plaintiff, Does the United States District Court Have Jurisdiction of the Case on the Basis of Diversity of Citizenship, Assuming the Amount in Controversy to Be in Excess of $3000.00, Exclusive of Interest and Costs?"
Also, in plaintiff's opening brief there appears this statement:
"The Doe defendants have not been dismissed out of and are still parties to the action."
But the "Does I-X" do not appear in the title to the judgment from which appeal is taken. In addition, that judgment contains the following sentence:
"It Is Further Ordered, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff, that this cause be and it is hereby dismissed as to the remaining defendants, Will Mastin, Sammy Davis, Sr., and Sammy Davis, Jr., a co-partnership doing business under the fictitious name of Will Mastin Trio, and the fictitious named defendants."
Defendant then printed a Supplemental Transcript of Record which shows that the fictitious defendants were dismissed from the action by the court of its own motion before counsel presented arguments to the jury.
Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
...or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for use of fictitious parties. See Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854 (C.A. 9 1969); Roth v. Davis, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 681; Molnar v. National Broadcasting Company, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d In Molnar, supra, a California citizen plaintiff claimed diversity of cit......
-
Dulcich, Inc. v. Mayer Brown, LLP
...jurisdiction under Louisiana direct action statute because insurer, not insured, was real party in interest); see also Roth v. Davis, 231 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir.1956) (“In determining ... diversity of citizenship ... a court looks to the citizenship of the real parties in interest; and wher......
-
Goldberg v. CPC Intern., Inc.
......National Broadcasting Co., 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 684 and Roth v. Davis, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 681. (246 F.2d at 620; emphasis added).4. For the removal petition to have been timely, the Court ......
-
Carson v. Allied News Co.
...'unnecessary' or 'formal' parties within the meaning of Wormley v. Wormley, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 421, 5 L.Ed. 651; Roth v. Davis, 231 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 1956); Hann v. City of Clinton, 131 F.2d 978, 981 (10th Cir. 1942); and the cases cited therein. It is clear, however, that these distr......