BlogLine

Limits of Civ.R. 15(D): No second chances for untimely defendant substitution

7/21/25

By: Lisa R. House and Aaron N. Kaeser

The decision in Bradley v. Altercare, 2025-Ohio-2344 (5th Dist.) shows that while Ohio Civ.R. 15(D) permits a plaintiff to name a properly identified defendant as “John Doe” when the true name is unknown, it cannot be used to substitute an unrelated party after the statute of limitations expires. The rule does not excuse a lack of diligence, and plaintiffs who fail to timely identify the proper party risk having their claims barred. 

In Bradley, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death and medical negligence complaint after a nursing home resident’s death. The complaint listed two corporate “John Doe” defendants, an LLC and an Inc., located at a Zanesville address. After the statute of limitations ran, the plaintiff amended the complaint to name Altercare—a different facility, in a different county and under different ownership. Altercare moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims in the amended complaint were time-barred and the plaintiff failed to comply with Civ.R. 15(D). The trial court granted the motion, and the Fifth District affirmed. 

The appellate court relied on Erwin v. Bryan, 2010-Ohio-2202, where the Ohio Supreme Court explained that while a plaintiff may use fictitious placeholders in a complaint where a defendant’s name is unknown, the complaint must nonetheless identify the alleged culpable party. Further, Civ.R. 15(D) cannot be used to circumvent the statute of limitations established by the General Assembly by identifying and serving true defendants after the period has elapsed. 

Because the original complaint referred to a completely unrelated facility, Altercare had no timely notice or reason to believe it was the intended defendant. As a result, the amended complaint did not comply with Civ.R. 15(D) and the court dismissed the claims against Altercare as untimely.  

Ultimately, plaintiffs have a duty to identify the appropriate defendant within the applicable statute of limitations. For counsel representing institutional clients, Bradley is a helpful reminder that even when the underlying claims may be substantively viable, such failures can prove fatal. 

For more information, please contact Lisa R. House at lisa.house@fmglaw.com, Aaron N. Kaeser at aaron.kaeser@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.