The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to correct misnomers and substitute "Doe" defendants with named individuals, alleging fraud and misappropriation.
The motion was unopposed for five proposed defendants and granted.
For the five vigorously opposed proposed defendants, the court applied Rules 5.04 and 26.01, considering prejudice and the "litigating finger" test.
The court found that the claims against Parray and Khanlarov were too vague and outside the relevant time period, and against Kovalov, the "litigating finger" was not sufficiently pointed, and potential prejudice was noted.
Therefore, the motion to substitute Parray, Khanlarov, and Kovalov was dismissed.
However, the motion to substitute Halatullah and Kolesnik was granted, as the claims against them were sufficiently particularized or their first name matched a "Doe" defendant, and any prejudice was deemed inherent to litigation.