Court Opinion

ID: 9533846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:35:02.729974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:11.793960
License: Public Domain

Thompson, C. L,
concurring:
I wish to emphasize that today’s opinion does not purport to determine the meaning of Rule 10(a).1 It assumes the *83applicability of that Rule to the instant matter since the issue of its pertinence was not tendered to the district court. Neither does the opinion foreclose the possible persuasive force of the federal cases therein cited to a case that does not fall within the intendment of Rule 10(a), but does concern the relationship of Rule 15(a) to Rule 21.

Rule 10(a) is the successor to NCL 8641 which, in turn, was borrowed from Cal. C.C.P. 474, presumably with the construction given it by the California court. State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 88 Nev. 582, 585, 503 P.2d 454 (1972).
The rule does not refer to a party who is not known. It does refer *83to a party whose name is not known. Thus, it appears to embrace the case where the plaintiff has in mind the identity or description of the fictitiously named defendant, but not his true name. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Stockton Terminal & R. Co., 186 P. 1049 (Cal.App. 1919); Day v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co., 108 P.2d 702 (Cal.App. 1940).
The primary purpose of the Rule apparently is to enable the plaintiff to bring suit before it is barred by limitations. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 364 P.2d 681, 684 (Cal. 1961); cf. Servatius v. United Resort Hotel, 85 Nev. 371, 455 P.2d 621 (1969).
When the case truly is one within Rule 10(a) and the true name of a defendant is substituted for the fictitious name, then, and only then, is he to be considered a party to the action from its commencement. The opposite is true when the case does not fall within the intendment of the Rule and the complaint is amended to add the true name óf a defendant. Stephens v. Berry, 57 Cal.Rptr. 505 (Cal.App. 1967); Lipman v. Bhend, 28 Cal.Rptr 800 (Cal.App. 1963). See also: Herschfelt v. Knowles-Raymond Granite Company, 279 P.2d 104 (Cal.App. 1955), involving a motion to change venue.