Lanham v. Doe

N.D. Indiana

Lanham v. Doe

DecidedFebruary 23, 2024

Docket4:23-cv-00038

StatusUnknown

This text of Lanham v. Doe (Lanham v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanham v. Doe, (N.D. Ind. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION at LAFAYETTE BONNIE LANHAM, GENEVIEVE WARREN, and ) MEAGAN O’ROURKE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 4:23CV38-PPS/APR ) JOHN DOE, INDIANA BEACH HOLDINGS LLC ) and STORE MASTER FUNDING VIII, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER The operative complaint in this case, plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Damages [DE 8] filed July 22, 2022 in White County Circuit Court, names a John Doe defendant. Since the removal of the case to this court, the docket reflects no identification of John Doe nor any service of process on that defendant, although Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) requires service of process on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Discovery on liability was subject to a November 1, 2023 deadline by order of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, and the date for further amendment of pleadings by plaintiff passed on September 1, 2023. [DE 20.] Despite these deadlines, plaintiffs have given no indication that they are able to, or seek to, identify John Doe. Plaintiffs claim sounds in negligence resulting in personal injuries, all of which occurred on or about July 3, 2021. Under Indiana law, an action for “injury to person...must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues. “ I.C. §34-11-2-4. Amendment of a complaint to identify a John Doe defendant does not relate back to the date of the original complaint. Herrera v. Cleveland, 8 F.4th 493, 498-99 (7th Cir. 2021). Any claim for negligence against the John Doe described in the Third Amended Complaint would appear to be untimely at this point. A district court may

dismiss a claim against an unnamed defendant without prejudice. Troya v. Wilson, 807 Fed.Appx. 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2020). For all these reasons, plaintiffs’ claim against defendant John Doe will be dismissed without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY: Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant John Doe are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for all the reasons explained in this opinion and order. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 23, 2024. /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION at LAFAYETTE BONNIE LANHAM, GENEVIEVE WARREN, and ) MEAGAN O’ROURKE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 4:23CV38-PPS/APR ) JOHN DOE, INDIANA BEACH HOLDINGS LLC ) and STORE MASTER FUNDING VIII, LLC, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER The operative complaint in this case, plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Damages [DE 8] filed July 22, 2022 in White County Circuit Court, names a John Doe defendant. Since the removal of the case to this court, the docket reflects no identification of John Doe nor any service of process on that defendant, although Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) requires service of process on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Discovery on liability was subject to a November 1, 2023 deadline by order of Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, and the date for further amendment of pleadings by plaintiff passed on September 1, 2023. [DE 20.] Despite these deadlines, plaintiffs have given no indication that they are able to, or seek to, identify John Doe. Plaintiffs claim sounds in negligence resulting in personal injuries, all of which occurred on or about July 3, 2021. Under Indiana law, an action for “injury to person...must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues. “ I.C. §34-11-2-4. Amendment of a complaint to identify a John Doe defendant does not relate back to the date of the original complaint. Herrera v. Cleveland, 8 F.4th 493, 498-99 (7th Cir. 2021). Any claim for negligence against the John Doe described in the Third Amended Complaint would appear to be untimely at this point. A district court may

dismiss a claim against an unnamed defendant without prejudice. Troya v. Wilson, 807 Fed.Appx. 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2020). For all these reasons, plaintiffs’ claim against defendant John Doe will be dismissed without prejudice. ACCORDINGLY: Plaintiffs’ claims against defendant John Doe are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for all the reasons explained in this opinion and order. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 23, 2024. /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lanham v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanham-v-doe-innd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack