Why&#39;d a plaintiff sue in 1. the firms&#39;s name or 2. all partners&#39; names, instead of always 3. suing in 1 and 2?
<p><sub>Source: <a href="https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/ontario-10/ontario-small-claims-court-a-practical-guide-skusku-cad-00935/details" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide</em></a> (2011), p. 29 Bottom - p. 31 Top.</sub></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>§3.17</strong> By the same token, a partnership may <em>be sued</em> either in [1.] the firm name, 
  [2.] in the names of all of the partners or [3.] in the names of all of the partners together with the firm name.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Isn't 3 (= 1 &amp; 2) always the most advantageous, lucrative option for a plaintiff? Why'd a plaintiff sue in 1 or<sub>EXCLUSIVE</sub> 2 instead?</p>

<p>The following states #1 as resulting the same and no more advantageous than #3. But #2's more burdensome than #3, as #2 needs the additional step of making the partners personally responsible for the judgment obtained against the firm name. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/6n23S.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/6n23S.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes, 3 is strictly better but it may not be possible</strong></p>

<p>The plaintiff may not know who all (or any) of the partners are or they may be impossible to serve (e.g. they all live incommunicado in Amazonia). That leaves suing the firm as the only option.</p>

<p>The plaintiff may not know they are dealing with a firm - they only know they are dealing with John Smith, so that is who they sue.</p>

ontario litigation