Nguyen v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al

1
25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KATHY NGUYEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Plaintiff
Kathy Nguyen and Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. (Doc. No. 12.) In the joint
motion, “Plaintiff Kathy Nguyen and Defendant Ford Motor Company request a Court
Order to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ford Motor Company with
Prejudice.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
However, Ford Motor Company is not a party to this action. The parties presumably
meant to identify Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, as the defendant joining the motion to
dismiss. The Court will leave it to the parties to verify whether that is what they meant.
Additionally, the Court notes that the joint motion only seeks to dismiss the claims
against a named defendant. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint and the caption to the joint
motion both identify “DOES 1 to 10” as defendants in this action. (Doc. Nos. 1-3; 12.)
Plaintiff does not allege that any specific Doe Defendant engaged in any particular activity
Case 3:25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB Document 13 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to support a claim against any individual Doe Defendant. (See generally Doc. No. 1-3.)
Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Defendants “are sued pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 474, and are each independently, or as a representative of another
defendant in this suit, responsible in some manner for the causes of action set forth herein
and the damages sustained by Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 3.)
Generally, “the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie
v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Although plaintiffs may have an opportunity
to pursue discovery to identify the unknown alleged defendants, a court may dismiss Doe
Defendants if “it is clear that discovery would not uncover the[ir] identities, or that the
complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Id. Absent good cause, a court may
dismiss unnamed defendants who have not been served within 90 days of the filing of the
Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It does not appear that Plaintiff has served any of the Doe
Defendants at this time.
Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice is DENIED. (See Doc.
No. 12.) The parties may file a joint motion that identifies correctly the parties seeking
dismissal. The parties should also indicate if such a motion is intended to dismiss only the
claims against the named defendant, or the action as a whole.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02953-AJB-JLB Document 13 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2