The Goldberg Law Firm Co., LPA

The Goldberg Law Firm Co., LPA

call today
Legal Help Nationwide440.519.9900 Email: steven@goldberglpa.com
call today

“John Doe” Pleading

In Pearson v. City of Columbus, released last week, the Tenth District clarified the standard with respect to "John Doe" pleading and held that as long as the complaint is filed within the statute of limitations, the plaintiff may amend the complaint to substitute a fictitiously named defendant within one year of the filing.  Although it is unlikely end up in the Ohio Supreme Court, this is an important case to keep on file when dealing with Civ.R. 15(D) and a "John Doe" pleading.  

In that case, the plaintiff filed a wrongful-death case against the city and some employees, referring to the employees by fictitious names because their names were unknown and undiscoverable at the time.  The plaintiff amended the "John Doe" pleading after the expiration of the statute of limitations, but within the one-year service requirement of Civ.R. 3(A), and served the now identified employees through the clerk's office.  The employees sought to dismiss the claims against them on statute of limitations grounds.

The Tenth District held, with respect to a "John Doe" pleading, that a plaintiff must personally serve the substituted parties pursuant to Civ.R. 15(D), but has until a year after filing the complaint to achieve the service as long as the plaintiff sufficiently identified the unknown defendant in the complaint.  This was an important holding, overruling case law in the Tenth District that held that service on the fictitiously name defendant must be completed within the statute of limitations and noting that the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co. , 42 Ohio St.3d 57, 537 N.E.2d 208 (1989), establishing the applicability of the one-year service rule to Civ.R. 15(D), remained good law.  

The plaintiff ultimately lost, however, because the method used to finally obtain service was through certified mail rather than the required personal service pursuant to Civ.R. 15(D).  The case includes good analysis on the issue and reaffirms that the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted Civ.R. 3(A) to apply to a "John Doe" pleading.