What’s in a name? Tomato/Tomato

Sometimes, just sometimes, we do not stop to consider the little issues.  In this case, the plaintiff filed suit against a condo association as it neared the end of the statute of limitation within which to file suit.  However, the plaintiff did not think too much about the named defendant or perhaps thought too much and instead of filing against the condo association the plaintiff filed under “XYZ Company”.   This is equivalent to naming a defendant as John or Jane Doe.  The statute of limitations expired and a year later the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint with the proper name of the defendant.  It turns out that the plaintiff had found several names during the research as to at-fault party prior to filing suit.  Instead of listing these names, and definitively naming the association as listed on with the Recorder of Deeds, the plaintiff waited until the answers on interrogatories and even longer.  XYZ Company cannot substitute for a name if parties have knowledge of the name.  The statute of limitations was not tolled by this strategy and plaintiff lost all rights to have her day in court.  In court proceedings, tomato is tomato.  See opinion Lisa Garant v. Michael E. Winchester et al.