When the plaintiff has named the wrong defendant, what must the plaintiff do, and what does the court then owe the new defendant?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In the practice file of this exercise, we read the administrative decision being challenged, to see which body actually made it, the complaint as filed, which names the defendant, any application by the plaintiff asking the court to permit a correction, and the proof of service showing whether the certified copy of the ruling reached the new defendant.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading follows the provision step by step: where the plaintiff has wrongly designated the defendant, the court, on the plaintiff's application and by a ruling, may permit the correction, and the court must then serve the certified copy of that ruling on the new defendant, so the route is opened by the plaintiff and completed by the court.
Another reading stresses what the provision does not do: the permissive word 'may' leaves the court free to refuse even on a proper application, and this paragraph provides only for a correction sought by the plaintiff, since the court's own initiative appears in the separate route where a ground arises after a cancellation suit has been brought.
Your judgment
When the parties disagree about which body made the challenged administrative act, what in the file would show whether the named defendant is the wrong one?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to let the court permit a correction on its own motion under this paragraph, or if a decision clarifies what counts as wrongly designating the defendant or when service on the new defendant is complete.