MAHAN, P.J.

Plaintiff appeals following the district court's denial of a motion for leave to amend and grant of a motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

Background Facts and Proceedings. Plaintiff Robert Morrison Jr., claims to have been injured during the late evening of January 23, 1999, or early morning of January 24, 1999, when he was physically removed from Club Shagnasty's in Cedar Falls, Iowa. On January 19, 2001, Morrison filed a tort action against Shagnasty's, Inc. d/b/a Shagnasty's Fun Factory/Nightclub and Comedy Shop (Shagnasty's, Inc). Morrison alleged in his petition: "The Defendant is an Iowa Corporation with its principal place of business being Black Hawk County, Iowa, and the Defendant runs a bar/nightclub known as Shagnasty's Fun Factory/Nightclub and Comedy Shop." Shagnasty's, Inc. filed its answer on March 8, 2001, asserting that Morrison had sued the wrong defendant. Shagnasty's, Inc. contended, and Morrison now concedes, that the wrong corporation is named in the petition. It is undisputed that Shagnasty's, Inc. is an Iowa corporation with it principal place of business in Linn County, Iowa. It does not do business in Black Hawk County, Iowa. Shagnasty's, Inc. further argues, and Morrison now concedes, the proper party defendant was Beck Tech d/b/a Club Shagnasty's (Beck Tech Inc.).

Morrison originally sought leave to amend his petition to add a new defendant, DBNP Beck Tech, Inc., d/b/a Shagnasty's Fun Factory/Nightclub and Comedy Shop. Morrison conceded his amended petition was not filed within the limitations period; however, he argued his amended petition corrected a misnomer and, therefore, related back to the date his original petition was filed, which was within the two-year limitations period. Shagnasty's, Inc. resisted the motion to amend contending Morrison failed to properly identify the new party defendant since the correct defendant was Beck Tech, Inc. and the statute of limitations had expired. Following a hearing the district court denied Morrison's motion to amend. In reaching its decision, the court stated:

Plaintiff's proposed amendment would substitute as defendant a new party. The new proposed party operated under a different assumed name than does the current defendant. This is not a case of correction of a misnomer, but rather the substitution of a new party. To allow the amendment at this time would simply result in the proceedings being ultimately dismissed because of the running of the statute of limitations against the proposed new party defendant.

On May 15, 2002, Shagnasty's, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment. As grounds for dismissal, Shagnasty's, Inc. asserted Morrison had sued the wrong party, the court had overruled his motion to substitute a new defendant, and the statute of limitations had expired. The court granted the motion. Morrison appeals.

The Issues. First, we address Morrison's contention that the district court erred when it denied his motion to amend his petition. We review rulings on motions for leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Porter v. Good Eavespouting, 505 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa 1993). Morrison concedes that he sued the wrong party; however, he argues the district court should have allowed him to amend his petition because the amendment does no more than correct a misnomer. In a misnomer case, "the right party is before the court, although under a wrong name." Thune v. Hokah Cheese Co., 149 N.W.2d 176, 178 (Iowa 1976). In the present case, the defendant before the court was Shagnasty's, Inc., not Beck Tech Inc. We, like the district court, conclude Morrison is not attempting to correct a misnomer. Rather, he is attempting to substitute a new party. In Smith v. Baule, 260 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Iowa 1977), our supreme court quoted with approval the following language from C.T. Drechsler's annotation, Change in Party After Statute of Limitations Has Run, 8 A.L.R.2d 6, 166 (1949)):

There was no misnomer or defect in the description or characterization of the defendant but an entire change in parties. We hold this is not proper, particularly after the statute of limitations has run.

[W]hether an amendment of process or pleading, or both will be allowed which changes the description or characterization of a party after the statute of limitations has run . . . seems to depend upon whether the misdescription or mischaracterization is interpreted as merely a misnomer or defect in the description or characterization, or whether it is deemed a substitute or entire change of parties; in the former case an amendment will be held to relate back to the commencement of the action, while in the latter case the amendment will be held to amount to institution of a new action.

As mentioned above, this is not a case in which Morrison seeks to correct a misnomer where the proper party is already in court. "To permit this amendment to relate back to the original complaint would deprive the substituted defendant of their defense of the statute of limitations." Smith, 260 N.W.2d at 853. Therefore, we find the district court properly denied Morrison's motion to amend.

We also find no merit in Morrison's other argument that the district court erred when it granted Shagnasty's, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. There is no genuine issue of fact as the wrong defendant is before the court and we concluded above the district court properly denied Morrison's motion to amend his petition to add the correct defendant as the statute of limitations had run. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

AFFIRMED.