Ex parte Grisby Jacob Thompson, [Ms. SC-2025-0127, Sept. 26, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Wise, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to grant Grisby Jacob Thompson’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the February 9, 2023, sixth amended complaint substituting Thompson for a fictitious defendant did not relate back to the original complaint.
The Court reiterates that substitution of a fictitious party relates back only if plaintiff “exercised due diligence to identify the fictitiously named party and … promptly amended its complaint once it knew the identity of the fictitiously named party.” Ms. *23, quoting Patterson v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 101 So. 3d 743, 747 (Ala. 2012). The Court holds that the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in determining Thompson’s role in the altercation outside the Zydeco nightclub (“the nightclub”) which they alleged injured them. The plaintiffs argued all they discovered in a 2021 deposition was Thompson’s identity and presence at the nightclub. However, the Court concludes that plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence by failing to conduct timely discovery concerning Thompson’s role in the altercation after learning of his identity. Ms. **27-28.