California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rodriguez v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., No. A146050 (Cal. App. 2016):
"The general rule is that an amended complaint that adds a new defendant does not relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint and the statute of limitations is applied as of the date the amended complaint is filed, not the date the original complaint is filed. [Citations.] A recognized exception to the general rule is the substitution under section 474 of a new defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint as to whom a cause of action was stated in the original complaint. [Citations.]" (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176 (Woo).) Section 474 provides in pertinent part: "When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint . . . , and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when [the] true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly . . . ." "If the requirements of section 474 are satisfied, the amended complaint substituting a new defendant for a fictitious Doe defendant filed after the statute of limitations has expired is deemed filed as of the date the original complaint was filed. [Citation.]" (Woo, supra, at p. 176.)
Page 5
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.