John Doe Employee v. Shade Masters LLC, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Doe Employee, No. CV-26-01132-PHX-SMM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Shade Masters LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on its own review. On February 17, 2026, Plaintiff 16 John Doe Employee filed a Complaint for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under 17 the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., unpaid minimum wages 18 under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 19 Title 23, Chapter 2, Article 8; and unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”) 20 A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq. (Doc. 1). However, Plaintiff did not reveal its name nor provide 21 any reason why its name cannot be revealed. (See id.) For the reasons set forth, the Court 22 strikes Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id.) 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” 25 Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 26 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring the title of every complaint to “name all 27 the parties”). “This presumption is loosely related to the public’s right to open courts, 28 [citation omitted] and the right of private individuals to confront their accusers.” 1 Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042 (citations omitted). 2 The Ninth Circuit allows parties to use pseudonyms in unusual cases where 3 anonymity is “necessary ... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or 4 personal embarrassment.” United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1980)); 5 Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000); 6 United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (“As a general rule, ‘the 7 identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in 8 an unusual case, where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity.’ ”) (citations and 9 quotation marks omitted); Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that 10 the use of a pseudonym was proper because of the case’s exceptional nature). To test 11 whether use of a fictious name is appropriate, courts ask whether “the party’s need for 12 anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing 13 the party's identity.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. 14 To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously, a district court 15 must balance five factors: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness 16 of the anonymous party’s fears. . .(3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to. . 17 .retaliation, (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest.” 18 Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042. District courts place particular emphasis on the first and 19 second factors. Id. at 1043. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 In this case, Plaintiff does not provide any reason why it must proceed 22 anonymously as John Doe. (See Doc. 1). Also, Plaintiff did not submit a request to the 23 Court to proceed anonymously. Thus, all five factors of the Ninth Circuit’s test weigh 24 against Plaintiff proceeding anonymously. See Kamehameha, 596 F.3d at 1042. Given 25 that Plaintiff provides no reason that necessitates proceeding anonymously, the Court will 26 strike Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id.) 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff John Doe Employee’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may re-file its Complaint revealing 4|| its identity on or before February 27, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to timely re-file its Complaint 5 || and reveal its identity, then this matter will be dismissed without prejudice. 6 Dated this 20th day of February, 2026.

8 Stephen M. McNamee 9 Senior United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-