Maxwell v. Honeycutt
In this action for medical malpractice and loss of consortium, appellants Annette and Kevin Maxwell[1]amended their complaint to name respondent Lori Honeycutt, M.D., as a Doe defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 474 (the fictitious name statute).[2] The trial court granted Dr. Honeycutts summary judgment motion on grounds that: (1) the fictitious name statute was inapplicable because plaintiffs were not ignorant of Dr. Honeycutts identity or the facts giving rise to a cause of action against her when their original complaint was filed; and (2) without the relation-back provision of the fictitious name statute, the amended complaint against Dr. Honeycutt was barred by the applicable statute of limitations ( 340.5). Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Maxwell v. Honeycutt