Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co.

217 F. 422, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1512
CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedOctober 28, 1914
DocketNo. 176
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 217 F. 422 (Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co., 217 F. 422, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1512 (D. Mont. 1914).

Opinion

BOURQUIN, District Judge.

On motion to remand. Defendants are a foreign street railway corporation and its servants, jointly against whom plaintiff brings this a passenger’s action for personal injuries due to the servants’ negligence. The servants are designated John Doe and Richard Roe, true names unknown, respectively conductor and motorman of the car wherein plaintiff was passenger. The corporation removed the case hither for diverse citizenship. Its contention is that the servants, being designated by fictitious names and not served with process prior to removal, are merely nominal or formal parlies, who can be ignored in removal. To this it cites Parkinson v. Barr (C. C.) 105 Fed. 82, and Loop v. Winters’ Estate (C. C.) 115 Fed. 366.

These cases so hold, but therein they are not supported by the authorities upon which they purport to rely, and have no foundation in principle. The statutes of this state authorize designation of defendants by fictitious names when their true.names are unknown to the plaintiff. The status of parties, whether formal or otherwise, does not depend upon the names by which they are designated, but upon their relation to the controversy involved, its effect upon their interests, and whether judgment is sought against them. When, as here, the cause of action is against them, and substantial relief sought against them, they are real parties in interest. Here, though designated by fictitious names, their citizenship is vital on removal, and, not appearing herein, removal was unwarranted.

Remand ordered. Costs to plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gentry v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
383 F. Supp. 3d 442 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2019)
Young, II v. Quinlan
960 F.2d 351 (Third Circuit, 1992)
Young v. Quinlan
960 F.2d 351 (Third Circuit, 1992)
Ramski v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
656 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Ohio, 1987)
Hartwell Corp. v. Boeing Co.
678 F.2d 842 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
The Hartwell Corporation v. The Boeing Company
678 F.2d 842 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Albert Pecherski v. General Motors Corp. And Jane Doe
636 F.2d 1156 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
Heatherton v. Playboy, Inc.
60 F.R.D. 372 (C.D. California, 1973)
Asher v. Pacific Power and Light Company
249 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. California, 1965)
Schindler v. Wabash R.
80 F. Supp. 685 (W.D. Missouri, 1948)
Pullman Co. v. Jenkins
305 U.S. 534 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Jensen v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
24 F. Supp. 585 (D. Montana, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 F. 422, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grosso-v-butte-electric-ry-co-mtd-1914.