Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Venue Johndoe topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee flags venue ambiguity for 'John Doe' defendants and seeks statutory clarification
Summary
Senators discussed inconsistent interpretations across circuits about proper venue when plaintiffs name an unknown 'John Doe' defendant. Members proposed treating unnamed defendants as nonresidents for venue to avoid forum shopping.
Members of the subcommittee discussed an ambiguity in venue law when plaintiffs name an unknown or 'John Doe' defendant. Several senators said some courts have treated a John Doe as resident to retain venue in a county where the plaintiff filed the suit, creating instances of forum selection that senators called problematic.
One senator asked whether the venue rules that apply to nonresident defendants should apply equally to a John Doe defendant. Another senator said the fourteenth circuit had a differing reading, producing cases in which suits filed in distant counties were not moved despite the alleged incident occurring elsewhere.
Committee members indicated they would draft clarifying language to treat an unknown defendant for venue purposes similarly to a nonresident defendant so venue would lie either where the incident occurred or where the plaintiff resides. Senators asked staff to consider statutory language used elsewhere in the code as a model.
