
    In re: HERITAGE BONDS LITIGATION, Gilbert KIVENSON; David Sinow; Howard Preston; Landgon Parrill; Ray Stits; Barrett Anderson; Laurence Pilgeram; Scott Mckenry; Ralph Allman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. TRUST CORPORATION N.A.; U.S. Trust Company of Texas N.A.; Valuation Counselors, Inc.; Valuation Counselors, Inc.; Healthcare Financial Solutions; Zelenkofske Axelrod & Co., Ltd.; O.V. Bertolini; Donald B. Chalker; Stephen P. Goodman; Evan Greenspan; Andrew Kornreich, (Deceased), Estate of; Cary Medill; Emery Rubin, (Estate of); Larry A. Rubin; Herbert Saltzman; Marshall Wexler; Jerold Goldstein; Michael Sobelman; Tarrant County Health Facilities Development Corporation; City of Mexico Beach; City of Chicago; Desert Hot Springs Public Financing Authority; Virgil Lim; Clarke Underwood; Robert A. Kasirer; Debra Kasirer; Bistra & Munkacs Holdings Inc.; JDDJ Holdings LP; Health Care Holdings LLC; Carecontinuum LLC; Louis Pontarelli; William Filippone; Leo Dierkman; Alan Pollak; Geri Ostlund; Richard Kuhl; James E. Iverson; Victor P. Dhooge; John M. Clarey; James F. Dlugosh; Edward J. Hentges; Kenneth R. Larsen; Jerome E. Tabolich; Steven W. Erickson; Joel T. Boehm; Sabo & Green; Atkinson Andelson Loy Ruud & Romo; Capital Consulting Group Inc.; Berman & Bertolini Inc., a/k/a Berman & Associates; Sobelman Cohen & Sullivan LLP; Paul R. Ekholm; Kenneth E. Dawkins; Loya Ruud & Romo; Fulbright & Jaworski, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-57063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 2, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 16, 2004.
    Brian Barry, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Steven W. Bacon, Esq., Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP, F.X. Sean 0‘Doherty, Gates O’Doherty Gonte & Guy, Los Angeles, CA, Mark P. Epstein, Esq., Poeschl Kohn & Epstein, Oakland, CA, Francis M. Gregorek, Esq., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, San Diego, CA, Fred A. Fenster, Esq., Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff, Los Angeles, CA, Steven R. Skirvin, DionKindem & Crockett, Woodland Hills, CA, John M. Caron, Reback, Hulbert, Meandrews & Kjar, Manhattan Beach, CA, Thomas E. Francis, Esq., Bohm Francis Kegel & Aguilera, Costa Mesa, CA, Jerrold Evan Abeles, Esq., Friedemann O’Brien Goldberg & Zarian LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John W. Cotton, Esq., Cotton & Gundzik, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin P. McVerry, Esq., Graves, Roberson & Bourassa, Thousand Oaks, CA, Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Gary Kurtz, Law Offices of Gary Kurtz, Woodland Hills, CA, Michael H. Gottsehlich, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, IN, Leon Small, Kevin W. Alexander, Esq., Gordon & Rees, LLP, San Diego, CA, Diane L. Dragan, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, Charles R. Grebing, Esq., Wingert, Grebing, Anello & Brubaker, San Diego, CA, Daniel M. White, White Noon & Oliver, San Diego, CA, Dennis C. Brown, Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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 filed, he cannot rely upon California’s Doe pleading practice 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 474.
     