Atari Interactive, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-07-22
案件信息
案件号：flsd-1:2025-cv-22727
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-13 00:00:00
诉讼类型：
律所：
原告：Atari Interactive, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 1 | 2025-07-13 | PAPERLESS ORDER STRIKING the Individuals and Entities Operating haodongdongdexiaodian identified on Schedule A from the [9] Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint names "the Individuals and Entities Operating haodongdongdexiaodian identified on Schedule A" as Defendants--this, in addition to the Defendant haodongdongdexiaodian. Am. Compl. at 1. But only "haodongdongdexiaodian" is listed on Schedule A. Id. at 18. And the Plaintiff doesn't tell us anything about the "individuals and business entities" operating haodongdongdexiaodian--other than that they're of "unknown makeup" and "own and/or operate the e-commerce store under the Seller Alias identified on Schedule A and/or other seller aliases not yet known to Plaintiff." Id. at 8. That won't do. This is just another form of "fictitious-party pleading," which "is not permitted in federal court." Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010); accord Dumond v. Miami-Dade Police Dep't, 2022 WL 17736204, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2022) (Ruiz, J.) ("The Court warns Plaintiff, however, that a claim against a group of unknown or unidentifiable police officers (otherwise known as 'fictious-party pleading') is not permitted in federal court." (cleaned up)). The only exception to this rule arises "when the plaintiff's description of the defendant is so specific as to be 'at the very worst, surplusage.'" Richardson, 598 F.3d at 738 (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 1992)). To qualify for this exception, though, "the plaintiff's description of the defendant must be so specific that the party may be identified for service even though his actual name is unknown." Barnett v. Pretrial Det. Ctr., 2023 WL 5176298, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2023) (Altonaga, C.J.) (cleaned up). That's not what's happening here. The Plaintiff provides no identifying details about these other Defendants, other than that they "may reside and/or operate" in China or other "foreign jurisdictions[.]" Am. Compl. at 8. Nor does the Plaintiff claim that these Defendants will be identified through discovery or otherwise. In fact, the Plaintiff tells us it's "virtually impossible" to discover the Defendants' "true identities and the exact interworking of their network" unless the Defendants themselves "provide additional credible information regarding their identities[.]" Ibid. Since the Plaintiff's descriptions are not "so specific as to be at the very worst, surplusage," Richardson, 598 F.3d at 738 (cleaned up), its claims against these fictious-party defendants must be dismissed. We therefore DIRECT the Clerk to remove these Defendants from the Docket. The Plaintiff shall proceed against the individual Defendant haodongdongdexiaodian only. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 7/13/2025. (rr01) |
