Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or entity. See Grantham v. Blount, Inc., 683 So.2d 538, 541 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (stating ssenKrupp or any other defendant. B. A “John Doe” Petition Does Not Toll Limitations As To An Unknown Defendant. Because “John Doe” was not a misnomer for ThyssenKrupp or any other defendant, Riston named an unknown defendant. ThyssenKrupp asserts that a petition which fails to identify the defendant does not toll limitations. We agree for several reasons. 1. No Texas Statute Generally Authorizes A “John Doe” Petition To Toll Limitations As To An Unknown Defendant. The Texas Legislature has not generally authorized a plaintiff to initiate suit and toll limitations by suing an unknown defendant as “John Doe” or any other fictitious name. See Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, 812 (Tex.Com.App.1922) (<HOLDING>); see also Grantham, 683 So.2d at 540-41 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing there is no authority to proceed against unknown persons in the absence of statute (B) holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute (C) recognizing the legitimacy of a passon defense in the absence of any statute (D) holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada (E) holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
Output (English): holding that there is no spousal exception to the statute