Rosendo Valencia Jr v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson. In the present case, two different individuals are identified as the plaintiff in the Complaint. While the title of the Complaint names "Rosendo Valencia[,] Jr[.]" as the plaintiff, paragraph 2 of the Complaint alleges that "[a]t all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff, BENJAMIN CORONA, (Hereinafter referred as [sic] "Plaintiff")... resided at and continues to reside at... the Property and is the trueOwner of the Property. " Accordingly, the Court orders the plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. In the alternative, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint, list ing the plaintiff's correct name in the title and throughout the body of the complaint. The plaintiff's response to this Order shall be filed by December 19, 2013. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this action. Refer to document for details of the Court's order. (pso)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-2073 PA (DTBx)

Title

Rosendo Valencia, Jr. v. Bank of America N.A., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

December 5, 2013

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), “[e]very pleading must have a caption with . . . a
title” and “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties.” See also C.D. Cal. R. 11-3.8(d)
(requiring the names of all parties be listed in the title page for initial pleadings). “The normal
presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names. This presumption is loosely related to
the public’s right to open courts, and the right of private individuals to confront their accusers.” Doe v.
Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also United States v.
Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1156 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007).
In the present case, two different individuals are identified as the plaintiff in the Complaint.
While the title of the Complaint names “Rosendo Valencia[,] Jr[.]” as the plaintiff, paragraph 2 of the
Complaint alleges that “[a]t all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff, BENJAMIN CORONA, (Hereinafter
referred as [sic] “Plaintiff”) . . . resided at and continues to reside at . . . the Property and is the true
Owner of the Property.”
Accordingly, the Court orders the plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not
be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. See Doe v. Rostker, 89
F.R.D. 158, 163 (N.D. Cal. 1981) (“This court has both the duty and the right to ensure compliance with
the Federal Rules and to take action necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.”) In the alternative, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint, listing the plaintiff’s correct
name in the title and throughout the body of the complaint. The plaintiff’s response to this Order shall
be filed by December 19, 2013. Failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of
this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1