DocketNumber: No. 30 97 01
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7095
Judges: GORDON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/27/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The general rule is that, for in personam actions, there is no authority to proceed against unknown persons in the absence of a statute allowing such an action. See Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, Inc.,
Some states have enacted statutes which allow the use of fictitious names in substitution for unknown defendants. (Missouri, North Dakota).
Where such statutes exist, there is still debate as to whether the substitution of a real person, after the statute of limitations has run, relates back to the original complaint.
Here, a fictitious name has been used intentionally, because the individual to be sued was unknown at the time the complaint was filed. The record is devoid of any discovery or attempts to ascertain the real identity of "Officer Doe". The statute of limitations has run. Our rules do not specifically authorize the use of fictitious names. These facts taken together, support the CT Page 7096 defendant's position.
Under C.G.S.
The defendant's arguments regarding notice to Officer Doe and non-joinder are not persuasive. (Indeed, the defendants might have brought this action more properly as a motion to dismiss.)
The Motion to Strike is granted.
ELAINE GORDON, JUDGE