Opinion ID: 1118515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims Against Fictitiously Named Parties

Text: The fourth issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against various fictitiously named parties. Dismissal of all claims against all the fictitiously named parties was proper. Although their action had been pending for a year and a half before the trial court entered the summary judgment, the plaintiffs had neither identified nor added as defendants any of the parties fictitiously named in their complaint. In its judgment, the trial court concluded that the only parties not before the court, who had any connection with the transaction, were either already known or could be identified easily, e.g., Metro Homes personnel. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court and hold that it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims. Based on the foregoing, we hold that the summary judgment on all the claims against CIT and the dismissal of the claims against the fictitiously named parties were proper. Therefore, we affirm. AFFIRMED. MADDOX, ALMON, ADAMS, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES and INGRAM, JJ., concur specially.