John Doe defendant in Washington

2023Id. at 331 .

2014In Sidis , this court observed “that in some cases, if identified with reasonable particularity, ‘John Doe’ defendants may be appropriately ‘named’ for purposes of RCW 4.16.170.” Id. at 331 .

2013In Sidis, our Supreme Court held that, under RCW 4.16.170, serving one named defendant tolls the statute of limitations regarding any unserved named defendant.22 The Sidis court stated that the case did not concern unnamed defendants.23 In dictum, it noted that "in some cases, if identified with reasonable particularity, 'John Doe' defendants may be appropriately 'named' for purposes of RCW 4.16.170."24 The Martins argue that we should apply the dictum in Sidis as law, asserting that Iwai v. State.25 a Division Three case, and Bresina v. Ace Paving Co.,26 a Division Two decision, support this

2013App. 308, 312 , 884 P.2d 936 (1994) (reference in complaint to "John Doe defendants allegedly 'negligent or otherwise responsible'" did not sufficiently identify particular defendant so as to justify tolling); Bresina v. Ace Paving Co., 89 Wn.

2013App. 277 , 948 P.2d 870 (1997). -15- NO. 68132-0-1/16 In Iwai, the court declined to extend the holding in Sidis to "unnamed 'John Doe' defendants,"27 and it did not explicitly discuss or cite the dictum in its opinion.

2013App. 308, 312 , 884 P.2d 936 (1994) (reference in complaint to "John Doe defendants allegedly 'negligent or otherwise responsible'" did not sufficiently identify particular defendant so as to justify tolling); Bresina v. Ace Paving Co., 89 Wn.

2017App. 115, 118-120 , 897 P.2d 365 (1995). 16 Id. at 119 . 6 No. 75875-6-1-7 employer in effect acted as their representative.17 The court also noted: Kuhlman's contention that res judicata does not apply against certain "unrepresented" Jane and John Doe defendants is without merit.

2017App. 115, 118-120 , 897 P.2d 365 (1995). 16 Id. at 119 . 6 No. 75875-6-1-7 employer in effect acted as their representative.17 The court also noted: Kuhlman's contention that res judicata does not apply against certain "unrepresented" Jane and John Doe defendants is without merit.

2013App. 277, 282 , 948 P.2d 870 (1997) (timely filing and serving a named defendant will toll period for filing suit against unnamed defendant only if plaintiff identifies unnamed defendant with "reasonable particularity" before statute of limitations expires). 5 CR 10(a)(2). 6 Kiehn, 45 Wn.