## Facts

- Frank Streicher was injured on July 16, 1979, when radio-controlled overhead garage doors opened unexpectedly at a construction site, causing him to fall from scaffolding.
- On October 4, 1979, Streicher timely filed a personal-injury complaint against various construction-site entities and included numerous fictitiously named “Doe” and fictitious business-entity defendants, alleging their true names and capacities were unknown.
- The original complaint alleged negligence based on unsafe jobsite conditions and failures to supervise and control installation and operation of the radio-controlled overhead garage doors.
- After resolving claims against originally named defendants, Streicher later learned that Tommy’s Electric Company and Shima American Corporation were allegedly responsible for the design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of the door openers involved in the accident.
- On May 18, 1982, Streicher filed a first amended complaint naming Tommy’s Electric and Shima and alleging defective design, malfunction without human intervention, and liability under negligence, warranty, and strict products liability theories.

## Issues

1. Whether an amended complaint filed after the limitations period naming product-related defendants could relate back to a timely complaint under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 where the plaintiff had sued Doe defendants because he was actually ignorant of the later-named defendants’ identities or involvement at filing.
2. Whether the amended pleading asserted a fundamentally different set of facts or cause of action that would defeat relation back.
3. Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper where the plaintiff sought to clarify Doe substitution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal.
- The court held the first amended complaint could relate back under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 because Streicher was actually ignorant of Tommy’s Electric’s and Shima’s identities and involvement when he filed the original complaint.
- The court held the amendment did not allege a different occurrence or injury; it concerned the same accident and merely identified additional responsible parties and legal theories tied to that event.
- The court concluded the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, at minimum because any technical defect in pleading the substitution should have been curable by amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 474 permits a plaintiff who is actually ignorant of a defendant’s name or identity at the time of filing to sue by fictitious name and later amend to substitute the true name; the substitution relates back to the original filing.
- Section 474 turns on actual ignorance at the time the original complaint is filed; it does not require the plaintiff to have exercised reasonable diligence before filing to discover the defendant’s identity.
- Relation back is proper when the amendment concerns the same general set of facts, occurrence, and injury alleged in the original complaint, even if the amendment adds additional theories of liability (including strict products liability and warranty) against the newly identified defendant.
- Courts should favor allowing amendment to effectuate proper Doe substitution where the statutory requirements are met and the defendant is, in substance, among the previously unknown parties described in the original pleading.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Streicher’s post-limitations amendment naming the alleged manufacturer/seller defendants to proceed because he had timely sued Doe defendants while actually ignorant of those defendants’ identities or roles, and the amendment arose from the same accident and injury, requiring relation back under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 and at least leave to amend to correct any technical substitution defect.


Streicher v. Tommy's Elec. Co., 164 Cal. App. 3d 876, 211 Cal. Rptr. 22 (Ct. App. 1985)