“John Doe” is not a misnomer). Instead, “John Doe” is a fictitious name used in legal proceedings to designate a person whose identity is unknown. See Black’s Law Dictionary 845 (7th ed.1999); see also Webster-’s Third New International Dictionaey 1218 (1993). “A plaintiff uses [‘John Doe’] intentionally to identify the fact that the defendant’s real identity is unknown.” Grantham, 683 So.2d at 541. In addition, the misnomer doctrine is applicable when a plaintiff has made a mistake. See Pierson v. SMS Fin. II, L.L.C., 959 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, no pet.); Cortinas v. Wilson, 851 S.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ). Riston’s naming “John Doe” instead of ThyssenKrupp was clearly not a mistake. See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Therefore “John Doe” was not a misnomer for
holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him holding that the defendant who is the same defendant as in this case clearly is entitled to headofstate immunity recognizing that the holding of cartwright does not apply when there is a plaintiff a defendant and a thirdparty defendant recognizing that for a john doe defendant there is no mistake in identifying the correct defendant rather the problem is not being able to identify that defendant