A homeowner discovered that the siding on his house was defective and had allowed water to enter the structure, causing damage to the wood framing. The homeowner tried for some time to negotiate a settlement with the corporation that the homeowner believed had manufactured the defective siding. When no settlement was forthcoming, the homeowner filed an action in federal district court against the corporation one week before the statute of limitations expired. Service of process was effected on the corporation several months later. After inspecting the home, the corporation filed and served its answer in which it denied manufacturing the siding used on the homeowner's house. Upon examining the corporation's evidence, the homeowner conceded that the siding was manufactured by another company. With leave of the court, the homeowner then filed an amended complaint substituting the actual manufacturer of the siding for the original incorrect defendant. The amended complaint was served on the manufacturer approximately seven months after the original complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had expired. The manufacturer was unaware of the action until it was served with the amended complaint. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the homeowner's claim against it is barred by the statute of limitations. How should the court rule on the motion