B. v. California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-08876
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In K. B. v. California Physicians’ Service, Judge Kang ordered the plaintiff and counsel to explain Rule 10 violations and possible sanctions.
The order directly affects K. B. and plaintiff’s counsel. They were required to respond within 14 days and faced possible dismissal of the complaint or sanctions if they failed to comply. The order did not impose a ruling on the defendant’s liability.
What happened
K. B. v. California Physicians’ Service concerns a complaint alleging harms under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against California Physicians’ Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, and unidentified defendants.
The court said K. B. did not identify themselves by a full name in the complaint or obtain permission to proceed under a pseudonym, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). The court ordered K. B. and counsel to respond within 14 days and warned that the complaint could be dismissed and sanctions could be imposed.
Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order to show cause; he did not dismiss the complaint or impose sanctions in this order. The order said that filing a motion seeking permission to proceed under a pseudonym by February 19, 2025, could serve as the response.
The detailed version
- B. v. California Physicians Service dba Blue Shield of California · No. 3:24-cv-08876
- Maxine Chesney
- Feb. 5, 2025
Background
On December 9, 2024, K. B. filed a complaint against California Physicians’ Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, and Does 1 through 10. The complaint alleged various harms under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The pleading identified the plaintiff only as “K. B.” and did not include a request for permission to proceed under a pseudonym.
Rule 10 issue
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires the complaint’s title to name all parties. The court concluded from the complaint that K. B. had not complied with that rule because the plaintiff was identified only by initials and had not sought leave to proceed under a pseudonym. The order also stated that a court has a duty to supervise attorneys appearing before it.
Order
The court ordered K. B. to show cause in writing within 14 days why the complaint should not be dismissed and why the plaintiff should not be required to use their name. It separately ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause within the same period why counsel should not be sanctioned for filing a complaint that did not comply with Rule 10 and for failing to seek permission for pseudonymous litigation.
The order stated that, if counsel filed by February 19, 2025, an emergency motion meeting the applicable local-rule requirements and showing good cause to proceed under a pseudonym, the court would review that motion as the response to the order to show cause. The court warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the complaint, monetary sanctions, legal-education requirements, or other appropriate measures. The order itself did not dismiss the complaint or impose sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.