"[A]n amendment [relates] back only where there has been an error made concerning the identity of the proper party and where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the mistake, but it does not permit relation back where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party." Ford v. Hill, 874 F. Supp 149, 153 (E.D. Ky. 1995) (quoting Wilson v. United States, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original)). "Substituting a named defendant for a 'John Doe' defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere substitution of parties."

, at *7 (citing Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 153 (E.D. Ky. 1995)).

Such substitution essentially adds new parties to the action, in contrast to correcting a mere mistake concerning the proper party's identity pursuant to Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii). See Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir. 1996); Force v. City of Memphis, 101 F.3d 702 (Table), 1996 WL 665609, at *1 (6th Cir. 1996); Moore v. Tennessee, 267 Fed.Appx. 450, 452, 454-55 (6th Cir. 2008); Stanley v. Malone, No. 2:07-cv-694, 2009 WL 485491, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2009); Burdine v. Kaiser, No. 3:09CV1026, 2010 WL 2606257, at *1, *3 (suing “Fremont Police Officers” due to a “lack of knowledge about their identities” does not constitute a mistake for purpose of Rule 15(c)); Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 151, 154 (E.D. Ky. 1995); Dye v. City of Warren, 367 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1182-83 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2005); Pierce v. Hamblen Cnty., Tenn., No. 2:09-CV-34, 2009 WL 2996333, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2009); Clark v. Oakland Cnty., No. 08-14824, 2010 WL 2891712, at *9 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2010). As Chief Judge DeGiusti observed, “the mistake proviso” of Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) “[was included] . . . in order to resolve ‘the problem of a misnamed defendant' and allow a party ‘to correct a formal defect such as a misnomer or misidentification.'” Chrisman v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm's of Okla. Cnty., No. CIV-17-1309-D, 2019 WL 13133362, at *4-5 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 17, 2019) (citing Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692, 696 (10th Cir. 2004)).

" Id. (quoting Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 705 (2nd Cir 1994)). Interpreting the federal equivalent of CR 15.03(2)(b), the court in Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 153 (E.D.Ky. 2005) confirmed that relation back "applies only where there has been an error concerning the identity of the proper party rather than where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party, the amended complaint in this case does not relate back to the filing of the initial complaint." Because it was not the result of a mistake about Defendant Insurers' identity, but rather, a calculated and firmly held decision not to name Defendant Insurers until forced to do so by the state court, Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Complaint does not relate back under CR 15.03(2)(b) to the date of the original Class Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Complaint, therefore, commenced a new action against Defendant Insurers well after KRS § 91A.0804's effective date.

These and similar decisions by sister district courts within the Sixth Circuit persuade the Court that relation back is inappropriate here. See, e.g., Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 151, 154 (E.D.Ky. 1995) (not permitting the amended complaint to relate back to the initial complaint which named "individuals (who are Kentucky State Troopers) whose identity is unknown to the Plaintiffs" because Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s mistake requirement "applies only where there has been an error concerning the identity of the proper party rather than where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party"); Dye v. City of Warren, 367 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1183 (N.D.Ohio 2005) (prohibiting amended complaint naming officers from relating back to original complaint, which listed "unnamed Warren police officers John Doe 1-5" because this did not satisfy Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s mistake requirement); Pierce v. Hamblen Cnty, Tenn., No 2:09-cv-34, 2009 WL 2996333, at *2 (E.D.Tenn. Sept. 16, 2009) (any attempt to amend plaintiff's complaint to name unnamed officers would not relate back to original complaint, and would thus be barred by the statute of limitations); Clark v. Oakland Cnty., No. 08-14824, 2010 WL 289171

Plaintiff's motion states that she seeks to substitute Stevens for the previously named "John Doe" defendants. (Doc. #54) It is well-established, however, that the substitution of a named defendant, whose identity was previously unknown, for a John Doe defendant is not a "mistake" within the meaning of Rule 15(c)(1)(C), such that relation back does not apply. See Moore v. Tennessee, 267 Fed. App'x 450, 454 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing numerous cases so holding); Force v. Cityof Memphis, No. 95-6333, 1996 WL 665609, at *3-*4 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 1996); Ford v. Hill, 874 F. Supp. 149, 153-54 (E.D. Ky. 1995). Plaintiff's second theory for relation back was not contained in her briefs, but was raised at oral argument.

Other authorities cited by Miniard support this conclusion. See Moore v. Tennessee, 267 Fed.Appx. 450, 455-56 (6th Cir. 2008) (relation back of amendment not allowed where plaintiff was unaware of identities of deputies that she sought to join in the action); Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp 149, 154 (E.D.Ky. 1995) (relation back of amended pleading not allowed where plaintiff sought to substitute named officers for unknown defendants). In the present case, Miniard was not timely served with the Summons and Complaint.

citingIn re Kent Holland Die Casting & Plating, Inc., 928 F.2d 1448, 1449-50 (6th Cir.1991); Marlowe v. Fisher Body, 489 F.2d 1057, 1064 (6th Cir.1973)). " [A]n amendment [relates] back only where there has been an error made concerning the identity of the proper party and where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the mistake, but it does not permit relation back where, as here, there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party."Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 153 (E.D.Ky.1995) ( quotingWilson v. United States, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir.1994) (emphasis in original)). Since the Delongs were not in error but instead lacked knowledge as to the identity of the Doe Defendants, there is no relation back under Rule 15(c).

"An amendment relates back only where there has been an error made concerning the identity of the proper party and where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the mistake, but it does not permit relation back where . . . there is a lack of knowledge of the proper party." Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 153 (E.D.Ky. 1995) (quoting Wilson v. United States, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original). [A]mendment [of a complaint] with relation back is generally permitted in order to correct a misnomer of a defendant where the proper defendant is already before the court and the effect is merely to correct the name under which he is sued.

The court is also obliged to follow any applicable Kentucky tolling provisions. Perdue v. Ferril, 2006 WL 1642300 at *4 (W.D.Ky. 2006) (slip op.) (citing Ford v. Hill, 874 F.Supp. 149, 151 (E.D. 1995)). However, the plaintiff has urged no other basis for equitable tolling under Kentucky law and the court finds none, certainly none which would permit tolling for a period long enough to make the November 28, 2005 filing of his complaint timely.