Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Pederson et al

Filing 12

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to File Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym; ORDER DIRECTING Status Report Re Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint on Jane Doe (Doc. 8); ORDER GRANTING 11 Stipulated Request to Extend Time for Defendant Pederson to Resp ond; ORDER RESETTING Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/06/2025. The Scheduling Conference set for 01/22/2025 is RESET for 3/10/2025 at 10:00 AM in Bakersfield (CDB) before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker. (Deputy Clerk CRB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER
PSEUDONYM

JAMES PEDERSON, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING STATUS REPORT RE
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT ON JANE DOE

13
v.

14
15

Case No. 1:24-cv-01299-CDB

Defendants.

16

(Doc. 8)

17
18

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT PEDERSON TO RESPOND

19

(Doc. 11)

20

ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE

21

(Doc. 5)

22

14-DAY DEADLINE

23
24
25

I.

Background

26

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff Safeco Insurance Company of America initiated this action

27

with the filing of a complaint against Defendants James Pederson, Flyers Energy, LLC, and “Jane

28

Doe.” (Doc. 1). The complaint asserts eight causes of action and seeks declaratory judgment that
1

1

Plaintiff owes no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Pederson regarding a state court lawsuit

2

filed in Kern County, Jane Doe v. Flyers Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. BCV-24-101783. Id. at 2.

3

The complaint identifies one Jane Doe, a citizen of California, as a defendant. Id. at 2, ¶ 5.

4
5

II.

Discussion
a. Request to Proceed under Pseudonym

6

“[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed

7

anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile

8

Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in

9

the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary…to protect a person

10

from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting United

11

States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need

12

for anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and

13

the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068.

14

The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to

15

proceed under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or

16

mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and

17

highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her]

18

intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution…” Id. (citations and

19

internal quotations marks omitted).

20

As the complaint alleges that Defendant Jane Doe is not a fictitious defendant or an

21

unknown party but, rather, an individual who seems to be utilizing the pseudonym to preserve

22

anonymity, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a request to proceed using a pseudonym.

23

b. Improper Reliance on California Code of Civil Procedure

24

In its complaint, Plaintiff cites to California Code of Civil Procedure § 367.3 for the

25

proposition that Plaintiff “will file under seal a document disclosing Jane Doe’s identity.” (Doc.

26

1 at 1, n.1.) The California Code of Civil Procedure does not govern in this civil action in federal

27

court, bringing claims under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act. (Doc. 1 at 3); see 28 U.S.C. §

28

2201; see Doe v. Univ. Acct. Serv., LLC, No. 09-CV-01563-BAS-JLB, 2022 WL 623913, at *2
2

1

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2022) (holding Ninth Circuit rules, not California law, govern the use of

2

fictitious names where action involves only questions of federal law).

3

Local Rules 141 and 141.1 govern requests to seal and protective orders in this case.

4

Counsel for Plaintiff is admonished to gain familiarity with this Court’s local rules of practice and

5

to adhere to the procedural rules relevant to this action.

6

c. Service of Executed Summons on Jane Doe

7

Upon preliminary review of the proof of service of executed summons on Defendant Jane

8

Doe (Doc. 8), it appears that the filed document is, in fact, not a proof of service of said

9

summons. As such, it appears that service of process has not been completed under Federal Rule

10

of Civil Procedure 4 as to Defendant Jane Doe.

11

The Court will direct Plaintiff to file either proofs of service of the summons and

12

complaint or a status report, under seal if necessary, explaining the particulars of any service

13

attempts and the current status of service upon Defendant Jane Doe.

14

d. Stipulation to Extend Time for Defendant Pederson to Respond

15

On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendant Pederson filed a jointly executed stipulated

16

request to extend the deadline for Defendant Pederson to respond the complaint to January 21,

17

2025. (Doc. 11). The parties represent that Defendant Pederson requires additional time to

18

obtain counsel. Id. at 2. For good cause appearing, the parties’ stipulated request is granted.

19

e. Scheduling Conference

20

Due to the foregoing issues regarding status and service of Defendant Jane Doe and to

21

permit time for the anticipated appearance of any unserved defendants, for the settling of

22

pleadings, and for the parties to comply with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting

23

Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. 5), the initial scheduling conference currently set for

24

January 22, 2025 (id.) is reset to March 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall appear at the

25

conference remotely via Zoom video conference, and the Zoom ID and password will be provided

26

to counsel by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference.

27

///

28

///
3

1

III.

Conclusion and Order

2

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

1. The parties’ stipulated request to extend Defendant Pederson’s time to respond to the

4

complaint (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Defendant Pederson shall file his response no

5

later than January 21, 2025.

6

2. The initial scheduling conference currently set for January 22, 2025 is RESET to

7

March 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely via

8

Zoom video conference, and the Zoom ID and password will be provided to counsel

9

by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The parties are reminded to adhere

10

to the requirements set forth in the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference

11

(Doc. 5).

12

3. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall (1) file a request to proceed in

13

this action under pseudonym as to Defendant Jane Doe and (2) file either proofs of

14

service of the summons and complaint or a status report, under seal if necessary,

15

explaining in detail the particulars of any service attempts upon, and the current status

16

of, service of executed summons and all other relevant documents upon Defendant

17

Jane Doe. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4