Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a “John Doe” petition involves an unknown defendant, for limitations purposes, it should be treated the same as a petition involving misidentification. Misidentification is distinct from misnomer. Ense in distinction between misnomer and misidentification is whether the correct party received notice of the suit). 3. Policy Reasons Why A “John Doe” Petition Should Not Toll Limitations Unless Authorized By Statute. Finally, statutes of limitations would have little, if any, import if they could easily be circumvented by filing a “John Doe” petition. See Thomas v. Process Equip. Corp., 154 Mich.App. 78, 397 N.W.2d 224, 226 (Mich.Ct.App.1986). Statutes of limitations are designed to compel the assertion of claims within a reasonable time so the opposing party has P.2d 343, 345 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Huggard v. Wake County Hosp. Sys., Inc., 102 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that allowing john doe complaint to toll limitations where defendant had no notice of suit before limitations expired would impair defendants ability to timely investigate accident scene marshal evidence and locate witnesses (B) holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim (C) holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed (D) holding there is no authority to toll statute of limitations based on mental incompetence (E) holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
Output (English): holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim