California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Genthner v. Taylor, F076233 (Cal. App. 2019):
Genthner relies on the relation back doctrine. "The general rule is that an amended complaint that adds a new defendant does not relate back to the date of filing 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.] 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." (Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 176 (Woo).)
Among the requirements for application of the relation back doctrine under section 474 is that the new defendant in an amended complaint be substituted for an existing fictitious Doe defendant named in the original complaint. (Woo, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) "[A]mendment after the statute of limitations has run will not be permitted when the result is the addition of a party who, up to the time of the proposed amendment, was neither a named nor a fictitiously designated party to the proceeding." (Ingram v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 483, 492.)
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.