Doe v. McCoy, 899 N.W.2d 899

Plaintiffs filed a 2016 tort complaint alleging sexual abuse of "Jane Doe" by defendant McCoy occurring between 1991 and 1999; Jane was born in 1985 and was a minor during the alleged abuse.
Jane married John Doe in 2014; John asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were time-barred and that the plaintiffs improperly used pseudonyms without prior court approval. Plaintiffs later submitted their real names confidentially.
The district court dismissed the complaint, holding the claims were barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-207 and 25-213 (4-year tort SOL tolled until age 21) which ran in 2010.
Plaintiffs argued Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-228 (enacted 2012, extending certain child-sexual-assault claims to 12 years after age 21) made their 2016 filing timely.
The district court rejected that argument, applying precedent that a later statutory extension cannot revive a claim already extinguished; the Supreme Court affirmed on the SOL ground and did not decide the pseudonym issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 25-228 (2012) extended the limitations period for Jane's child-sexual-assault claims that had already expired by 2012	§ 25-228’s "notwithstanding any other provision of law" language and its extension to 12 years after 21 makes the 2016 filing timely	A completed statutory bar (under §§ 25-207 and 25-213) vested in defendant by 2010 and cannot be resurrected by later legislation	Held: § 25-228 does not apply to claims already time-barred when enacted; action was barred and dismissal affirmed
Whether plaintiffs could proceed under pseudonyms without prior court approval	Plaintiffs proceeded anonymously and later disclosed real names; anonymity was warranted by sensitivity of allegations	Statute requires actions be brought in real party names; plaintiffs did not obtain prior court approval; no exceptional circumstances shown	Held: District court ruled anonymity not permissible, but Supreme Court did not reach this issue because SOL ruling was dispositive

Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573, 520 N.W.2d 541 (1994) (a subsequent legislative change cannot revive claims extinguished by a completed statutory bar)
Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565, 466 N.W.2d 771 (1991) (a completed statute of limitations vests a defendant with a right that cannot be impaired by later legislation)
Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 Neb. 353, 848 N.W.2d 605 (2014) (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to resolve the appeal)
Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289, 770 N.W.2d 619 (2009) (loss-of-consortium is derivative of the injured spouse’s viable claim)
Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661, 881 N.W.2d 579 (2016) (determination of applicable statute of limitations is a question of law)
Harring v. Gress, 295 Neb. 852, 890 N.W.2d 502 (2017) (grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo)