Pemberton v. Compass Orthopedic Technologies & Pro
Kimberly Pemberton filed an amendment to her complaint for strict liability to substitute a named defendant for “DOE 1.” That party, Compass Orthopedic Technologies & Products, Inc. (Compass) moved to strike Pemberton’s amendment and to quash service of the complaint on the ground that Pemberton was not genuinely ignorant of Compass, and thus could not avail herself of Code of Civil Procedure Section 474, which allows a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant to designate the defendant by a fictitious name. The trial court agreed with Compass and granted the motions. We now reverse.
Comments on Pemberton v. Compass Orthopedic Technologies & Pro