California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Kerr-Mcgee Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 160 Cal.App.3d 594, 206 Cal.Rptr. 654 (Cal. App. 1984):
Finally, in Kleinecke v. Montecito Water Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, 195 Cal.Rptr. 58, a plaintiff sued a sanitary district, when he should have sued a water district. The two districts were represented by the same attorney, who filed an answer on behalf of the sanitary district. The five-year statute of limitations passed. Then, plaintiff learned of his mistake and filed a motion under section 473 seeking to amend his complaint to name the water district as a defendant on the ground that he had mistakenly named the sanitary district. The water district argued that plaintiff was seeking not merely to correct a misnomer as to a defendant but to bring in an entirely new party after the statute of limitations had run. The trial court granted the motion to amend. However, it later granted a summary judgment in favor of the water district on the ground of the running of the statute.
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.