Can a plaintiff amend their pleading to add a new defendant for purposes of the statute of limitations?

An amended complaint that adds a new defendant generally does not relate back to the date of filing the original complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations. (Woo, supra,75 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) But section 474 allows the substitution of a new defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint. (Ibid.) If the requirements of section 474 are satisfied, even if such substitution occurs after the statute of limitations has expired, the amended pleading is deemed filed as of the date the original complaint was filed. (Ibid.) For section 474 to apply, the plaintiff must have been genuinely ignorant of the defendant's identity at the time he or she filed the original complaint. (Id. at p. 177.) Omitting the defendant's name in the original complaint must be a consequence of real ignorance and not merely a means of evading the requirements of section 474. (Ibid.) Ignorance of a defendant's true name "should be real and not feigned. [Citation] . . . The attempt to file an amendment under section 474 should be honest and in good faith." (Scherer v. Mark (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 834, 841.)

As a general rule, questions involved in determining whether an action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations are questions of fact. (Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 704, 713.) Where the facts are not disputed, however, the determination

Page 6