Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, “Pleadings, Rules 7 to 25 “, see 28 Dicta 368 (1951). For article, “Pleadings and Motions: Rules 7-16 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 542 (1951). Actions may be brought only by and against legal entities. Actions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities. There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are awarded and against whom they may be enforced. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980). II. Caption; Names of Parties. Law reviews. For article, “The Federal Rules from the Standpoint of the Colorado Code”, see 17 Dicta 170 (1940). For article, “Motion for Publication of Summons on Quiet Title Proceedings”, see 26 Dicta 182 (1949). For article, “Standard Pleading Samples to Be Used in Quiet Title Litigation”, see 30 Dicta 39 (1953). For article, “Federal Practice and Procedure”, which discusses a recent Tenth Circuit decision dealing with John Doe pleadings, see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 220 (1985). Naming exception is not applicable to verdicts and judgments. A verdict is not a pleading, and those who formulated in C.R.C.P. 10(a) an exception to naming parties in pleadings did not have any intention of making the same exception for verdicts and judgments. Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s, Inc., 156 Colo. 46, 396 P.2d 933 (1964). There is no exception to naming requirement. The rules of civil procedure make no exception in “in rem” actions, as distinguished from “in personam” actions, to the requirement that defendants be named if their names are known or be designated as “unknown” when such is the case. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980). Naming of defendants insufficient. The designations, “owner” and “operator”, in the caption of the case, without naming them, when those persons were known to the district attorney, are not in compliance with the requirements of the rules of civil procedure that a party defendant shall be named unless his name is unknown. Barker v. District Court, 199 Colo. 416, 609 P.2d 628 (1980). Rule is only an attempt to standardize the method of form by which all complaints are to be made, not a device by which claims may be forever preserved. Watson v. Unipress, Inc., 733 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir. 1984). There is no indication in the rule that naming a “John Doe” defendant operates to toll the statute of limitations, nor have any Colorado courts recognized that the rule was intended to toll the statute or in any manner preserve any claims against later identified parties. Watson v. Unipress, Inc., 733 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir. 1984). The public has an interest in disclosure of who the parties to an action are. A party may use a pseudonym for the name of a party upon a motion to the court. The court in determining whether use of a pseudonym for a party is appropriate shall evaluate: Whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or to innocent non-parties; whether the action is against a governmental or a private party; whether the plaintiff would be compelled to admit his or her intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution; and the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously. A pseudonym may not be used merely to avoid embarrassment, humiliation, or economic loss. Doe v. Heitler, 26 P.3d 539 (Colo. App. 2001). III. Adoption by Reference; Exhibits. Annotator’s note. Since section (c) of this rule is similar to rule 2 of the former supreme court rules, cases construing that rule are included in the annotations to this rule. Section (c) was intended to eliminate unnecessary repetition. Borwick v. Bober, 34 Colo. App. 423, 529 P.2d 1351 (1974). This rule was intended to prevent the necessity of repeating the parts relevant to a later count, and it was expected that pleaders would refer only to the relevant parts by the words “as in the first cause of action stated” or their equivalent, as was the custom at common law. Fulton Inv. Co. v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 76 Colo. 472, 231 P. 61 (1925). The pleader has no right to adopt wholesale all the allegations of a previous cause of action. Fulton Inv. Co. v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 76 Colo. 472, 231 P. 61 (1925). This rule permits a document to be made a part of a pleading by attaching it as an exhibit, and in so attaching it, it amounts to the same thing as if it were set forth in the body of the pleading, as was the practice before the rule. Sparks v. Eldred, 78 Colo. 55, 239 P. 730 (1925).

For pleadings allowed, see C.R.C.P. 7(a); for general rules of pleading, see C.R.C.P. 8.