Henderson v. Superior Court
Filed 5/23/06 Henderson v. Superior Court CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
BILL HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | No. B189765 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC323154) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ. Judith C. Chirlin, Judge. Petition granted.
Law Offices of Akudinobi & Ikonte, Chijioke O. Ikonte and Emmanuel C. Akudinobi for Petitioner.
Coleman & Associates, John M. Coleman and Charles K. Collins for Real Parties in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
_________________________________
Petitioner Bill Henderson (Henderson) filed a complaint naming several parties as defendants. Some of those parties were fictitiously named. The issue before us in this proceeding is whether Henderson's failure to expressly allege ignorance of the fictitiously named defendants' true identities forecloses him from maintaining suit against those defendants. We conclude that it does not. Therefore, we grant Henderson's petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order striking his complaint as to real party in interest William McSweeney (McSweeney), who was substituted into the action for a fictitiously named defendant.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Henderson claims several officers of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department assaulted him in violation of his civil rights. He filed a complaint that included 20 fictitiously named defendants, designated as Does 1-20. Upon ascertaining the name of one of the officers' supervisors in discovery, Henderson substituted McSweeney into the litigation for Doe 1. However, McSweeney moved to strike the complaint as to Doe 1, arguing Henderson's allegations against the fictitiously named defendants were deficient. McSweeney asserted that while the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 474[1] require a plaintiff to plead â€
