Streicher v. Tommy's Electric Co.
164 Cal. App. 3d 876, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1655, 211 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 474, an amended complaint substituting a named defendant for a fictitiously named 'Doe' defendant relates back to the date of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes, provided the plaintiff was genuinely ignorant of either the defendant's identity or the facts giving rise to a cause of action against them at the time the original complaint was filed. There is no requirement that a plaintiff exercise diligence in discovering the defendant's identity or the facts after the complaint is filed.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1979, Frank Streicher was working on scaffolding at a construction site.
- Radio-controlled overhead garage doors opened, causing Streicher to fall from the scaffolding and sustain personal injuries.
- At the time of his initial lawsuit filing, Streicher believed his injuries were caused by a failure to supervise the installation and operation of the doors, not a product defect.
- On March 30, 1982, an electronics expert informed Streicher that the electronic door controllers involved in the accident were defectively designed and could malfunction without human intervention.
- On May 18, 1982, Streicher sought to add Tommy’s Electric Company and Shima American Corporation, the alleged designers and manufacturers of the door openers, to his lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 4, 1979, Frank Streicher filed a complaint for personal injuries in the trial court against several named defendants and numerous fictitious 'Doe' defendants.
- On May 18, 1982, Streicher filed a first amended complaint adding respondents Tommy’s Electric Company and Shima American Corporation as defendants.
- Respondents demurred to the first amended complaint, arguing the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the respondents.
- Streicher, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an amended complaint, filed after the statute of limitations has run, relate back to the timely filed original complaint under California's fictitious defendant statute when the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts giving rise to a cause of action against the newly named defendants at the time of the original filing?
Opinions:
Majority - Panelli, P. J.
No, the amended complaint is not barred by the statute of limitations because it relates back to the original filing date. The purpose of the fictitious defendant statute, section 474, is to allow a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant's identity or the facts creating a cause of action to file a complaint before the claim is barred. The critical inquiry is the plaintiff's knowledge at the time the original complaint is filed, not what the plaintiff learns or should have learned afterward. In this case, it is undisputed that when Streicher filed his original complaint, he was ignorant of the fact that the garage door openers were defectively designed, which is the basis for his claim against respondents. The law does not impose a duty of reasonable diligence on a plaintiff to discover the identity of fictitious defendants after filing the complaint. Since Streicher was genuinely ignorant of the facts giving rise to a products liability claim against the respondents at the time of his initial filing, and since he amended his complaint promptly after discovering these facts, the amendment relates back to the original, timely complaint.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of California's fictitious defendant statute, prioritizing the policy of resolving disputes on their merits. It clarifies that the 'ignorance' required by section 474 is measured at the moment the original complaint is filed and is not defeated by information the plaintiff acquires later. The court's explicit rejection of a post-filing diligence requirement provides significant protection for plaintiffs, allowing them to add defendants after the statute of limitations has run, provided they were genuinely unaware of the facts supporting a claim against that defendant at the outset of the litigation. This precedent solidifies that a plaintiff does not lose the benefit of the relation-back doctrine simply because they could have discovered a defendant's identity sooner.
