B. v. California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-08876
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 K. B., Case No. 24-cv-08876-PHK 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v. REGARDING FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 10 OF THE FEDERAL 11 CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 Defendant. Re: Dkt. 1

13 On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff (named only as “K. B.” in the pleadings) filed the complaint 14 in the instant action against Defendants California Physicians’ Service doing business as Blue Shield 15 of California and DOES 1 through 10, alleging various harms under the Employee Retirement 16 Income Security Act. [Dkt. 1]. 17 Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[t]he title of the complaint 18 must name all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may 19 refer generally to other parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (emphasis added). From the face of the 20 Complaint, Plaintiff K. B. has not complied with Rule 10(a), because they did not name themselves 21 (and only identified themselves by the initials “K.B.”) and because they did not seek leave from the 22 Court to proceed under a pseudonym. Cf. Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1053 23 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (finding a party complied with Rule 10 when they contemporaneously filed their 24 complaint and an ex parte motion to proceed under a pseudonym). 25 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 Plaintiff K. B. is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within fourteen (14) days 27 from the date of this Order, why the Complaint should not be dismissed and/or why they should not 1 Procedure. A court has a duty to supervise the conduct of attorneys appearing before it. Erickson 2 v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 301 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Trust Corp. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 3 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, 4 || Counsel for Plaintiff K. B. are also ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they should not be 5 sanctioned for filing the Complaint in this action that did not conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 and for 6 || failing to seek leave from the Court for their client to proceed pseudonymously. If (through counsel) 7 Plaintiff K. B. files an ex parte motion conforming to Civil L.R. 7-10 showing good cause to proceed 8 || under a pseudonym ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 19, 2025 (that is, within fourteen (14) days 9 from the date of this Order), then the Court will undertake to review any such motion as a response 10 || to this OSC by both Plaintiff K. B. and plaintiffs counsel. 11 Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but 12 || not limited to terminating sanctions such as the dismissal of the Complaint, monetary sanctions, 13 imposition of legal education requirements, as well as any other measures the Court deems 14 appropriate within the scope of its broad discretion. Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 3 15 || 367 (9th Cir. 1996). 16

= 17 || ITISSO ORDERED. 18 Dated: February 5, 2025 19 PETER H. KANG 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28