July 3, 2008
Fake ID costs injured worker his day in court

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Planning on suing somebody soon?

If so, just make sure you don't play judicial hide-and-seek. Because as Ramon Caldera learned, getting caught at that game is a surefire way to lose your lawsuit.

Born in Venezuela in 1964, Caldera arrived illegally in the United States in 1996. Two years later, he started using “Carlos Rodriguez” as an alias, and also a Social Security number ending in 6784.

Fast forward to Jan. 10, 2005.

That's when Caldera, using his alias, his assumed Social Security number, and a false date of birth, successfully applied for a job with Bollinger Gulf Repair, a shipyard company near New Orleans. His employment was short-lived, however, as he was allegedly injured in an accident only 12 days later.

Caldera later sued Bollinger for damages in Orleans Parish District Court. The complaint, like his job application, identified him as “Carlos Rodriguez” instead of by his real name.

In the early stages of discovery, Caldera responded to a set of interrogatories, which are written questions answered under oath. In response to an interrogatory seeking his identifying information, Caldera again used his alias and assumed Social Security number, also indicating that he was born in Puerto Rico in 1952. He later repeated this account at his deposition in July of 2006.

Five months later, the District Director of the Social Security Administration in Massachusetts got wind that two individuals, one living in Louisiana and the other in the Bay State, were using the same Social Security number. In late December of 2006, the director asked the Carlos Rodriguez living in Massachusetts to come to his office with his birth certificate and other original documents establishing his identity. As a result of this interview, the official became convinced that the Massachusetts resident was the “correct person” for the Social Security number ending in 6784.

For unclear reasons, the director soon passed this information along to Bollinger's labor contractor.

After that, defense counsel traveled to Boston to depose the other Carlos Rodriguez. Besides verifying his Social Security number, the witness testified that his date of birth was Aug. 14, 1952, (which, funny thing, was the same date used by Caldera in his job application). He also said that since his personal identification was stolen from his car in 1994, he'd been having problems with someone trying to use his identity.

Deciding to come clean, Caldera supplemented his prior interrogatory answer in September of 2007. This time, he acknowledged his true birth name, along with his true date and place of birth. He also admitted that in 1998, two years after his arrival in the states, he began using his alias and the assumed Social Security number.

Bollinger immediately moved to dismiss Caldera's claims on the ground that his lawsuit was filed under a false name using a false identity. Not messing around, the trial court granted the motion with prejudice. (A lawsuit dismissed “with prejudice” can't be re-filed.)

In the ensuing appeal, Caldera essentially argued that it was a no harm, no foul situation. His true identity was an “insignificant element” of his claim, said the plaintiff, and exposed Bollinger to no additional liability.

But a Louisiana appeals court, by a 2-1 vote, last month disagreed.

Finding no Louisiana case on point, the court considered two recent federal decisions affirming dismissals where the plaintiff had filed a complaint under a false name. In one of them, a federal appeals court said a trial is neither a “masquerade party” nor a “game of judicial hide-and-seek” where the plaintiff offers the “added challenge” of uncovering his real name. Since judges must be able to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, said the court, a party who files suit under a false name loses the right to seek judicial relief.

Applying the same reasoning, the Louisiana appeals court affirmed the dismissal of Caldera's suit. This “harsh penalty” was appropriate, said the court, in light of his “egregious conduct,” which included lying about his true name and date/place of birth in his job application, interrogatory answers, and deposition testimony.

While agreeing that lying to a tribunal is inexcusable, the dissenting judge said Bollinger “arguably knew or should have known” about Caldera's undocumented status. If left unaccountable, the dissent reasoned, employers like Bollinger would be rewarded for violating federal law by hiring undocumented workers, and also would have an incentive to “target” them for the “most dangerous jobs.” Given these considerations, said the dissent, the “appropriate sanction” was to make Caldera pay the costs incurred by the defense to discover his true identity.

Since the majority rules, however, Caldera won't have his day in court — not, at least, as a plaintiff. But, rightly or wrongly, whether he makes the docket in immigration court as a defendant might be a different story.