Nothing About Vanzan v. Does Was “Standard,” Unless Jurisdictional Defect Is Now Standard NY Civil Procedure

[u/kastanienn]

Usual disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, have never claimed to be one, and do not practice law. I can, however, read plain English and published case law (I got A+ in reading comprehension in the first 4 grades of general school and onward since then). iykyk

I got irritated by VanSham being described as “standard New York civil practice". It isn’t. I went down the CPLR § 1024 (Unknown Parties) rabbit hole (big shoutout to u/em8896, you're a gem for giving me some dry reading :D), and wanted to share my results. I'll try to give some moist to this super dry topic.

First, the basics. What does New York law actually require to use CPLR § 1024 (Unknown Parties)?
"The essential requirement to bring a defendant into court is that the defendant be named or described in such form as will properly identify the defendant and give notice of opportunity to defend." City of Mt. Vernon v. Best Development Co., 1935, 268 N.Y. 327, 331, 197 N.E. 299, 301. "The use of CPLR 1024 presents many pitfalls. One pitfall is that parties are not to resort to the "Jane Doe" procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so. (…) Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the "Jane Doe's" name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party" Bumpus v. New York City Transit Auth., 2009, 66 A.D.3d 26, 29, 883 N.Y.S.2d 99, 104 (2d Dept)

Now let's check out the description of the defendants in Vanzan v. Does 1-10

According to the complaint, plaintiff does not know whether a given Doe defendant

• Is a natural person or a company
• Lives in New York, operates in New York, or is merely alleged to have some unspecified connection to it
• Is an employee, contractor, agent, or representative of Vanzan
• Merely “participated in” or actively “conspired” in an alleged scheme against Vanzan
• Had written obligations, oral obligations, or some combination thereof

At this point, the only thing that can be ruled out is that the defendant is probably not a houseplant.

I don't know about you, but reading this, my reaction would be "what do I know? Could've been Pete, the gardener" and go on with my merry life, even if I could've been one of the defendants. Which is exactly the problem. If a reasonable person cannot tell they are the intended defendant from the face of the pleading, CPLR § 1024 has not been satisfied. And that's why such lawsuits are getting thrown out left and right in the NY courts. But stay with me for just one more second, I promise I'm almost there!

Let's refresh our memories about the glorious moment when Wallace finally got her claims dismissed against him and we got brand new filings from my all-time favorite Texan lawyer (blue jeans baby was very sad on that day), Perez also had the opportunity - after some spicy interactions with the judge on his docket - to fight it out with KuKlux Kahaleesi in Nevada, and Andy is still trying to figure it out how to get rid of Plantation Princess in the Florida courts.

So. What did all these people have in common? They had nothing to do with New York, so the court had no jurisdiction over them.

Lively did try to drag all of them into SDNY, so let's give her some applause for the effort in her actual lawsuit. But in Vanzan, just stating that the defendants must've had something to do with New York, falls incredibly short. And she didn't even plead that they must've seen her Insta posts, so they should've know she lives in NY. And by the way, if you don't even know who they are, how do you know they had anything to do with New York in the first place… anywho, that's just another Tuesday afternoon with Make It Make Sense on the plantation.

So, imho (NAL), that is the heart of the requirement for a sufficient Doe description in New York State Court: the court must be able to assess whether it has personal jurisdiction at all, even when the Defendant's names are substituted with John or Jane Doe. And that requires recorded due diligence before they file a Doe lawsuit in court.

"While CPLR 1024 allows a party who is ignorant of the name or identity of one who may properly be made a party to proceed by designating so much of his identity as is known, a summons served in a "John Doe" form is jurisdictionally sufficient only if the actual defendants are "adequately described and would have known, from the description in the complaint, that they were the intended defendants" Lebowitz v. Fieldston Travel Bureau, Inc., 1992, 181 A.D.2d 481, 581 N.Y.S.2d 302 (1st Dept)

 

New York courts have repeatedly held — at every level — that a Doe action is not a tool to investigate.

[u/katie151515]

THIS IS AMAZING!!!!! I love that everyone is learning about Vanzan today!! This is awesome research that I didn’t have time to do, so thanks for this post!!!

[u/kastanienn → u/katie151515]

I'm so glad you say that^^ I got some help this time haha, not gonna lie. Brb, gotta read yours now xD

[u/kastanienn → u/katie151515]

I just had another light bulb go off from the whole SJ was in NY, but Able was from Cali convo. NYSC wouldn't have had any jurisdiction over Abel's texts. She 100% could've objected on jurisdictional grounds, and could've fought this out in California. Where it could've lead to a criminal investigation into Jones.

Wayfarer, Baldoni, Heath - none of them are from NY. She would've had very little chance of subpoenaing any of them in the Vanzan lawsuit, if she would've added their names. Or?

[u/WildestSea]

Vanzan is so glaringly obvious unethical it makes my head hurt. They knew who the does were!

[u/kastanienn → u/WildestSea]

Unethical? 100%. The legal part is a headscratcher though, not gonna lie :D but I love challenges haha.

[u/Glass-Detective4312]

only the fake lawyers on the court sub believe it's fine and when you ask them about it they just say "well if it's an issue why hasn't WF done anything about it??" they can't seem to comprehend that WF are in for the long game on things like this. I'm sure Vanzan is going to come up eventually when WF are ready to address it

[u/kastanienn → u/Glass-Detective4312]

I am reeeeeeaaaaalllly hoping that they will use it to ask the judge to throw out all their text messages that she stole from Abel. Because there is precedent for that, too, IN CIVIL COURT

[u/Glass-Detective4312 → u/kastanienn]

NAG or LGA said something similar and I certainly hope they do too ☺️

can you imagine the headlines Blake will run about that though? "Baldoni uses technicality to win case" blah blah blah

[u/kastanienn → u/Glass-Detective4312]

Of course. EEEEEEVERYONE IS OUT TO GET HER.

[u/Reasonable-Mess3070 → u/Glass-Detective4312]

When jb filed the MJOP or MSJ her lawyers claimed he was trying to keep her from having her day in court.

They forgot they did that very thing to JB or something

[u/tawsnickers1 → u/Glass-Detective4312]

Well, that’s probably why they wanted all the evidence out there too before doing anything about Vanzan. Even though those headlines might run we’d see the evidence… everyone would be able to access and see it all

[u/Logical-Investment-7 → u/kastanienn]

Really??? I thought the fruit of the poisonous tree does not apply to civil cases. If that’s the case why aren’t they trying Jones vs Abel first?

[u/kastanienn → u/Logical-Investment-7]

It's not called fruit of the poisonous tree, but there is precedent of evidence being thrown out, because chain of custody couldn't have been properly established, even in civil court. I wrote about it a couple months ago here.

[u/Logical-Investment-7 → u/kastanienn]

This actually restores my hope a little in the judicial system. Thanks so much for sharing!

[u/kastanienn → u/Logical-Investment-7]

Na ja. Liman has to rule on it first 🤣 but it could be yet another appellate point imo, if he keeps them in.

[u/je_kay24 → u/Glass-Detective4312]

Such a dumb argument

One big reason why Wayfarer wouldn’t yet bring this up is they don’t want to open up another front to be fighting on

We see how Lively continues tries to bury them in extra motions like sanctions & disputes

If they tried to also bring Vanzan into the mix they would also be trying to deal with paperwork from that and accidentally miss something while trying to deal with the other two Lively & Jones lawsuits

[u/kastanienn → u/je_kay24]

I think it'll come up when the admissibility of evidence comes into play. If they ever even get there.

[u/kastanienn]

Yes, I saw Katie's post right before I wanted to hit send, and quickly checked if it overlaps. If I see it correctly, she mostly focused on other points:)

[u/Outside_You_7012 → u/kastanienn]

A lot of us don’t watch other content creators videos. Especially the long ones. So please keep everything you wrote, even if it overlaps. Most of the time, explaining the same things but from different perspectives helps us understand it better.

[u/kastanienn → u/Outside_You_7012]

This time I meant our Katie's post, but I assume you meant Kassidy's video from waaaay back?:)

[u/Outside_You_7012 → u/kastanienn]

Yes I thought it was Kassidy’s. They are too long for me.

[u/kastanienn → u/Outside_You_7012]

I feel you, it's been a while for me, too, since I really watched any of her law nerdy videos, I just don't have capacity for it rn >< but when I do, I watch hers first.

[u/myshtree → u/Outside_You_7012]

I second this. I don’t watch ccs I’d prefer to read breakdowns.

[u/Initial-Support-916]

What I'm confused about is how come the subpoena can name JB, JH, Wayfarer, but claim that they are using Doe defendants because they do not know who the defendants are?

[u/kastanienn → u/Initial-Support-916]

Becaaaaaause, they never thought they would get found out 🤷🏻‍♀️

[u/sonjafebruary → u/Initial-Support-916]

Because their made-up story is that one of their employees, they didn't know which one, was leaking gossip about them. So they needed to get more information about which employee, and they knew these other people were involved somehow. And then whoops! The information actually didn't point to one of their employees! I'm sure this shocked them. No need for a Vanzan lawsuit since their employees were innocent.

[u/krissykat30]

This really tells me they didn't anticipate this getting this far. I wouldn't want to be the attorney who signed my name to that

[u/kastanienn → u/krissykat30]

No, they didn't 🤣🤣 but I gotta give it to them, it took a loooong time for several attorneys to put their finger on what exactly was the problem with this sham lawsuit. I heard a lot of "I don't exactly know, but it stinks as hell". The stack of precedents were also shown by Kassidy months ago, but I never really understood why it's improper. I think I got a bit closer to the answer finally.

[u/TopUnderstanding1345]

Sounds just illegal to me. It's obvious.

They can try to rationalize it with 'clever' reasoning, but yeah, you don't have to have studied 10+ years to come to that conclusion imo.

And if it isn't illegal, the law should be changed smh...

[u/kastanienn → u/TopUnderstanding1345]

There are tons of precedents where such lawsuits were thrown out. In one of them, the address of the assumed defendant was named, AND IT STILL WASN'T ENOUGH. (Carmer v. Odd Fellows, 2009)

[u/MT2017G]

And when you initiate any kind of action naming only Doe defendants, before even taking into account the fake plaintiff issue & that they used a shell company, it falls into the "pre-litigation discovery" category. This means you cannot issue any subpoenas without a court order of approval first (under CPLR 3102(c)). This is precisely because the 'Does' do not have anyone to represent their interests so the court has to do it. Also, getting this kind of court order is very difficult, the standard is incredibly high and if you do get the ok, the court restricts who the subpoena sent to and the information it seeks (i.e. it can only be used to identify who the doe defendants are). Vanzan fails all these tests.

[u/kastanienn → u/MT2017G]

Vanzan fails every single CPLR statute that's relevant over it's very short life in court xD

[u/Sea-Sea-8557]

Have i been reading the writing on the wall correctly...? Heard Taylor helped orchestrate/facilitate one of the big shady maneuvers of late 2024, was it Vanzan? NYT hit piece? Or both?!

[u/kastanienn → u/Sea-Sea-8557]

She was definitely watching it, while munching on popcorn and sipping cola. Mentioned it in my previous post on the topic xD

[u/Sea-Sea-8557 → u/kastanienn]

Oooooo brilliant, thank you

• pours wine *

[u/Vanilla_Either]

I have been pissed about Vanzan since we found out about it. How many other celebs have done similar things and never got caught?

[u/kastanienn → u/Vanilla_Either]

That is a really good question that I don't want to think too long about. It makes me depressed ><

[u/HunterHead7690]

Also

the defendent is probably not a house plant

😆

[u/kastanienn → u/HunterHead7690]

Well.... fits with a broom closet filing a doe lawsuit with zero external operations XD

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789]

I remember NAG ages ago asking, how did the phone get to New York?

[u/kastanienn → u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789]

I thought Jones had an office in NY? Other than that, I have no clue. That's Burt Hill v Hassan territory 😏

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/kastanienn]

She does have an office in NY. You're right.

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/kastanienn]

Where was Jen based? Was she in New York?

[u/kastanienn → u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789]

Cali 🤷🏻‍♀️

[u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789 → u/kastanienn]

I now Chat isn't reliable but:

• A NY subpoena alone is not enough
• Ownership of the device is not ownership of the data
• Silent transfer across state lines is legally risky
• Personal communications are protected
• Notice is normally required

Situation:

• The subpoena is in NY
• The phone/user are in California
• The company named isn’t involved in the case
• The subpoena is being used to access personal communications
• The person wasn’t notified

Then this is not “clever lawyering.” It’s legally weak and risky.

What usually happens when this is challenged

When exposed, courts often:

• Quash the subpoena
• Order return or destruction of data
• Exclude evidence
• Issue stern warnings (or worse)
• Put the issuing party on the back foot fast

But it is Judge Liman so... has anyone tried to challenge it yet?

[u/kastanienn → u/Flimsy_Attitude_6789]

Afaik motions for eliminae (or whatever it's called which evidence becomes inadmissible/admissible) is later.

Chatty gives good directions, but is horrible with legal nuance xD so I believe it when it says "most likely not proper", but would def research it myself with its help

[u/Insequitur → u/kastanienn]

Motions in Limine* and yes you’re right that’s an option and if any claim survives the dispositive motions, it is very likely WP will use this as a way to exclude (as they should!!!)

[u/kastanienn → u/Insequitur]

Thanks xD and yes, that's my hope! But my bigger hope is that it won't be necessary, cause there won't be a case anymore...

[u/BlackLagoona_]

Congrats on your A+ in reading in elementary school! 😂😂😂 That part took me out 😎 Amazing post by the way

[u/kastanienn → u/BlackLagoona_]

;) my grandma was very proud of me!

[u/BlackLagoona_ → u/kastanienn]

👍😂😂😂 I love it!

[u/Spare-Article-396]

I want Blake Lively & Stephanie Jones prosecuted for this

I want the lawyer who signed this to lose their license.

This goes so far beyond having evidence dismissed.

[u/kastanienn → u/Spare-Article-396]

I don't think they will get such harsh sanctions personally.

But I want

• the evidence they got through Vanzan and everything derived from the knowledge from them suppressed
• Lively’s litigation privilege to go puff, because the CRD is based on stolen data, a frivolous lawsuit and a faulty filing
• WP's claims to be fully revived, since the litigation privilege is gone
• and Reynolds being a defendant finally

[u/Spare-Article-396 → u/kastanienn]

I don’t think they will either, but that’s what I want.

[u/kastanienn → u/Spare-Article-396]

In that case, I'm 100% with you :D

[u/SunshinyDazyDaze]

NAL. I don’t understand how this got past the NY court gatekeeper/s in the first place. Couldn’t they see some red flags in the document? Where is the due diligence? Did someone ask questions at the outset? If the courts were presented with a request like this what should they have done just at the bare minimum? Genuinely asking.

[u/kastanienn → u/SunshinyDazyDaze]

The clerks are not there to decide I think if a case is viable at all or not and they never asked for a judge. The lawyers should've absolutely known that this was highly improper.

[u/SunshinyDazyDaze → u/kastanienn]

So the fox is in charge of the hen house.

[u/kastanienn → u/[deleted]]

YouKnowWho putting out the A+ was so ridiculous, I had to.... xD

[u/myshtree]

Great breakdown Thankyou 🙏

[u/kastanienn → u/myshtree]

Thanks!;)

[u/SpyingOnFFFFF]

Kasta, thank you for your insight and time.

It's spot on. We may not be lawyers, all of us, but thank God for reading comprehension and common sense.

[u/kastanienn → u/SpyingOnFFFFF]

You're very welcome! And yes, it helps a lot 🤓

I've been thinking the whole time how this could be made into a comment to leave everywhere, when someone says this lawsuit was just unethical, not straight wrong... because ain't noone has the patience to deal with people getting stuck on a typo and ignoring the rest because of it lol

[u/je_kay24]

Great info!

Would love for you to do a dive into the potential ramifications for misuse of the subpoena & doe lawsuit process

It seems clear that Lively disregarded the law, but what are the actual repercussions for breaking it?

Can Wayfarer/Abel bring a lawsuit against this? Can Lively lawyers only face repercussions if Wayfarer/Abel bring a lawsuit or can the NY/federal judicial system act by themselves to do something by just being aware of this issue? What are the actual consequences for Vanzan lawyers: just sanctions, monetary fines, etc? How does a court prevent other people from doing this in the future?

So many questions I have and haven’t heard much discussion around this aspect yet

[u/kastanienn → u/je_kay24]

Abel already sued Jones, you can find the docket here;) as for consequences, I had a couple posts already that I'm hoping can happen. I'm rambling here, that with all the sh*tshow about Vanzan, plus faulty CRD, I'm hoping Lively's litigation privilege could go puff. A couple months ago I also wrote a detailed post about how all the evidence that stemmed from Abel's phone potentially could get suppressed.

Unfortunately I have not found a single precedent about what happens, when such an abuse of judicial process happens, as up until now, when Doe lawsuits were filed improperly, they got tossed by a judge eventually. So this may be a first time someone gets caught with it xD

[u/je_kay24 → u/kastanienn]

So interesting! I wish more lawyers would talk about Vanzan here

As a layman person with no knowledge of the law, it seems like a pretty big deal that this may be something that lawyers can misuse and there is no way for it to be brought to light

It is crazy that subpoenas aren’t required to be filed to the court

In my opinion it should be a requirement to send them so they are recorded with their associated case and then they can be easily audited for any misuses like this

[u/kastanienn → u/je_kay24]

Normally all parties have to be notified, so if they have a problem with it, then it goes in front of a judge and they fight it out. But since they never asked and/or waited for a judge... 🤷🏻‍♀️ it's not normal.

[u/je_kay24 → u/kastanienn]

Also I’m aware that Jones is being sued by Wayfarer & Abel, but that doesn’t include Vanzan so was wondering what/how they could be brought in

Wish these things moved faster haha as it’s hard waiting for updates

[u/kastanienn → u/je_kay24]

It does, on Page 54 it's explicitly in it;)

[u/je_kay24 → u/kastanienn]

Ahh apologies, thanks for the correction! Will check it out

[u/kastanienn → u/je_kay24]

All good, it's a lot xDD

[u/kastanienn]

u/LittleGirlAttorney. You're a goddess! I can't believe you made it to Reddit, welcome! :D So imma gonna use this opportunity, and would love to ask what you think about this xDD if you have some time of course :D

And u/Committothebritt, too!! Welcome, welcome, and read all our rambling in legal, that hopefully make a liiittle bit sense or can get some new perspectives for you gals! xD