On April 1, 2019, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2005 titled ‘Unknown Defendant. Doe Designation’, will go into effect. The rule has been adopted to standardize the procedure in which to assert a cause of action against a Doe defendant. Previously, the Rules were silent as to the use of Doe defendants in litigation, but case law showed that the naming of Doe defendants had occurred.
The Rule provides that it only applies to in personam actions. The Plaintiff may use a Doe designation provided that, after reasonable investigation, a defendant’s actual name is unknown and that the Doe designation is averred to be fictitious.
In the event that the name of the Doe Defendant is identified, Plaintiff has 20 days to file a motion to amend the complaint to replace the Doe designation with the defendant’s actual name. The procedures for that filing and the Court’s review are set forth in the Rule. Also, no final judgment may be entered against a defendant designated by a Doe designation.
The comments section of the Rule provide further guidance as to what is required of the filing party in naming a John/Jane Doe defendant… “The rule requires a complaint using a John/Jane Doe or similar designation to describe the defendant with sufficient particularity for identification. The rule imposes a duty on the plaintiff or joining party to exercise due diligence in identifying the actual name of the defendant both before and after the complaint is filed. While a sufficient description of an unknown defendant is typically fact specific to a particular case, it may include the physical characteristics of the unknown defendant, the position or title of the job performed by the unknown defendant, the alleged conduct of the unknown defendant, and how the unknown defendant is connected to the action.”
Importantly, the comments state that a filing party is not permitted to designate a John/Jane Doe defendant(s) as a catch all in order to later name a defendant that was not known at the time of filing. “It is important to note that designating a Doe defendant as a mere placeholder or as use as a class of defendants, e.g., John Doe Defendants 1-10, is not a valid use of Rule 2005. The rule is not intended to create a practice of naming Doe defendants as a catch-all category in the event a probable defendant is not named in a complaint. Rule 2005 requires the information in the complaint concerning the Doe defendant to sufficiently describe that defendant for all intents and purposes except by its actual name.”
Any questions on this new Rule can be sent to David R. Friedman.
