1 (referring to AHUG as “plaintiff” suing “on behalf of its members”; the members were not named as “plaintiffs”).) 14 USCIT R. 10(a) states that “ [e]very pleading must have a caption with the court’s name, a title[,] a court number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The caption of the summons and the complaint must name all the parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties.” USCIT Rule 10 corresponds to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Congressional intent behind Rule 10, which discounts claims where the complaint fails to sufficiently identify a party, is rooted in concern for providing notice to the parties in an action and protecting the public interest. See Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 160 (N.D. Cal. 1981)(<HOLDING>). Although AHUG claims that three utility
holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession recognizing that the intent element is to be gleaned from all the surrounding facts and testimony and not solely from the subjective intent of the original shipper holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper holding the purpose behind fed r civ p 10 is not solely one of administrative convenience but serves to apprise the parties of their opponents and it protects the publics legitimate interest in knowing all the facts and events surrounding court proceedings holding that where the proffered hearsay statement of the victim pertained to a memory of the previous days events and was offered solely for the purpose of proving such events such statement was not admissible under rule 8033