Doe v. McCoy
297 Neb. 321
Neb.2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a tort complaint in 2016 alleging sexual abuse of “Jane Doe” by William McCoy from 1991–1999; Jane was born in 1985 and was a minor during the abuse. John Doe asserted loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs sued under pseudonyms; they later provided their real names to the court confidentially but did not obtain prior court permission to proceed anonymously.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the claims were time barred by Nebraska statutes of limitations and (2) the complaint violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-301 by using pseudonyms.
- The district court dismissed on both grounds: it held applicable statutes (§§ 25-207 and 25-213) produced a limitations bar in 2010, and the 2012 statute § 25-228 (which extends the limitations period for child sexual assault victims) did not revive already-barred claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing § 25-228 extended their filing deadline to 12 years after Jane’s 21st birthday (i.e., to 2018) and that they should be permitted to proceed anonymously.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-228 (2012) extends the limitations period so the 2016 suit is timely | § 25-228 extends the deadline to 12 years after plaintiff’s 21st birthday, so suit filed in 2016 is timely | The prior statutes (§§ 25-207 & 25-213) produced a completed bar in 2010; a later statute cannot revive an extinguished claim | Court held § 25-228 does not apply to claims already time-barred when enacted; action was barred |
| Whether plaintiffs may proceed under pseudonyms instead of real names | Plaintiffs sought to proceed anonymously due to sensitivity of alleged sexual abuse | Defendant argued § 25-301 requires real-party names and plaintiffs did not obtain court approval to use pseudonyms | Court did not reach merits (statute of limitations dispositive) but district court also denied anonymous pleading as unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Givens v. Anchor Packing, 237 Neb. 565 (legislative amendment cannot resurrect an action extinguished under prior statute)
- Schendt v. Dewey, 246 Neb. 573 (limitation period in effect at filing governs; cannot deprive defendant of a bar already complete)
- Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289 (derivative claims, like loss of consortium, depend on viability of primary claim)
- Lindner v. Kindig, 293 Neb. 661 (determination of applicable statute of limitations is a question of law)
- Harring v. Gress, 295 Neb. 852 (motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)