On May 23, 2025, Neal Thakkar successfully moved to dismiss a plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted in a Cape May County case. The plaintiff filed a timely complaint, in which he claimed he was injured in the course of his job as a sanitation worker. His initial complaint identified a property in North Wildwood as the location of the incident. However, about eight months into the litigation and after the statute of limitations had elapsed, he moved for leave to file an amended complaint, as he claimed that the incident actually occurred at a property with the exact same address in West Cape May, a mainland community about ten miles from North Wildwood. Retained to defend the property owner in West Cape May, Neal moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that plaintiff could not avail himself of the fictitious party practice rule, which permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint to replace a John Doe defendant with the actual party only if the identity of the party could not be ascertained with the exercise of diligence prior to the running of the statute. Neal argued that as a sanitation worker, plaintiff could be charged with knowing his weekly routes, and that if he had any doubts, he could ask his employer. Further, Neal argued that a litigant can identify the property where an incident occurred and its owner with minimal effort using online resources such as Google Street View and deed searches. In response, plaintiff argued that there was no prejudice to Neal’s clients in being forced to defend against the claim, that plaintiff himself was diligent, and that the sins of the attorney who may have erroneously misidentified the property in the original complaint should not be visited upon a blameless litigant. Agreeing with Neal’s contentions, the Court ruled in a written opinion that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the requirements of the fictitious party practice rule and dismissed the case with prejudice against Neal’s clients.
