Opinion ID: 1835389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Biesse America's Appeal

Text: Biesse America argues that any judgment entered against it is void because of a lack of jurisdiction. It argues that the complaint did not name it as a defendant and that because B.S.A. was not a legal entity or an assumed name or a trade name for Biesse America, see, e.g., Ex parte CTF Hotel Management Corp., 719 So.2d 205 (Ala.1998); and Hughes v. Cox, 601 So.2d 465 (Ala.1992), it had no notice that it was an intended defendant. A plaintiff must properly name a defendant in order to properly sue that defendant. Ex parte Pate, supra, 673 So.2d at 429; Cofield v. McDonald's Corp., 514 So.2d 953 (Ala.1987). The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose liability on Biesse America; therefore, the default judgment against B.S.A. which was not an assumed name or trade name for Biesse America, did not impose liability on Biesse America. Biesse America, not being a party to this action has no right to appeal, and its attempt to appeal is void.