Troche v. Daley (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 403, did not involve a misnomer amendment under Code of Civil Procedure section section 473. Instead, that case held that the plaintiff (Troche) could not rename a defendant (Turney) in an amended complaint filed after expiration of the statute of limitations, where the defendant had previously been dismissed from the action without prejudice. (Id. at p. 412.) As the court explained, "The . . . dismissal of Turney had the effect of removing him from the lawsuit as though no action had been filed against him. Since the dismissal was without prejudice, Troche was free to later rename Turney in the lawsuit provided she acted within the statute of limitations." (Ibid..) But Troche had not done so, and the court held that her amended complaint renaming Turney did not relate back to her original complaint. (Ibid.)