MEMORANDUM **

Gilbert Kivenson and numerous other plaintiffs (collectively Kivenson) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint against Fulbright & Jaworski on the basis of the statute of limitations. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that because Kivenson was not ignorant of the facts necessary to name Fulbright & Jaworski at the time that the complaint was *275filed, he cannot rely upon California’s Doe pleading practice1 to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. Rather, that knowledge precluded relation back of his claim against Fulbright & Jaworski to the date that his complaint was originally filed. See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Constr., Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1143-44, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 446, 452 (2004); Taito v. Owens Corning, 7 Cal.App.4th 798, 802, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 689 (1992); Snoke v. Bolen, 235 Cal.App.3d 1427, 1430-32, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 492, 493-95 (1991); Dover v. Sadowinski, 147 Cal.App.3d 113, 116-18, 194 Cal.Rptr. 866, 867-69 (1983); Lipman v. Rice, 213 Cal.App.2d 474, 480, 28 Cal.Rptr. 800, 804 (1963).

AFFIRMED.