Doe

Doe v. Superior Court

Good Law
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 557·194 Cal. App. 4th 750·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 467
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 20, 2011No. B228748California1,880 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

*752 Opinion

Petitioner Shawna Doe filed a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the trial court’s ruling that, although she was permitted to pursue her action under a fictitious name, she was required to provide verifications signed in her true name in connection with discovery responses. We agree with petitioner that, under the circumstances, she may submit verifications with her fictitious name. We therefore grant the writ petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Shawna Doe was raped by Andrew Luster, 1 after he rendered her unconscious by the surreptitious administration of gamma hydroxyl butyrate (GHB). 2 In January 2003, Andrew Luster was convicted of over 80 counts of sex crimes, against Doe and other victims, and sentenced to 124 years in prison. In September 2003, Doe obtained a civil judgment against Andrew Luster, for sexual battery, for $19 million. Andrew Luster subsequently filed bankruptcy; Doe, however, obtained a ruling that her judgment was not dischargeable.

Doe came to believe that Andrew Luster, who was an heir to the Max Factor fortune, had transferred assets to his mother, Elizabeth Luster, in order to avoid paying Doe’s judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.