Dyer v. DOES 1-10
- Joseph Spero
- 3:23-cv-01226
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dyer v. Does 1-10, Judge Spero struck a motion for alternative service after finding apparent fabricated and mischaracterized citations.
The plaintiff, Min Ji Goo Ji Goo Dyer, whose motion was struck but who was allowed to file a corrected motion; the order also warned that future citation or characterization problems could affect the case.
What happened
In Min Ji Goo Ji Goo Dyer v. John Does 1-10, the plaintiff asked to serve the defendants by an alternative method. The court could not find several cited cases and found that another cited decision said the opposite of what the motion claimed.
The court struck the motion under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the plaintiff was representing herself, the court allowed her to file a corrected motion.
Judge Joseph C. Spero warned that more citations to nonexistent cases or misstatements of court holdings could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Dyer v. DOES 1-10 · No. 3:23-cv-01226
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 21, 2024
Background
The plaintiff filed a motion for alternative service. The motion cited several cases that the court could not locate on PACER or Westlaw using the cited case names, citations, and case numbers. The court identified three such citations: Shinde v. Nithyananda Foundation, Google LLC v. Abdin, and Juul Labs, Inc. v. Cheapest Vape Supplies LLC.
The court also found that the motion mischaracterized Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A”. The motion said that decision authorized email service on defendants in China, while the cited court had found that email service on a defendant in China was not proper.
Ruling
The court struck the motion under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order did not grant the requested alternative service. Because the plaintiff was proceeding without a lawyer, the court permitted her to file a corrected motion for alternative service.
The court cautioned that further citation to nonexistent cases or mischaracterization of case holdings could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on October 21, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.