| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Directed At The First And Second Causes Of Action Of Plaintiff?S Complaint
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC21594697 - August 15, 2025 Hearing date: August 15, 2025 Case number: CGC21594697 Case title: ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. ALBERT LEE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21594697 | Case Title: | | ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. ALBERT LEE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-15 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Directed At The First And Second Causes Of Action Of Plaintiff?S Complaint | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Friday, August 15, 2025, line 1, DEFENDANT ALBERT LEE Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Directed At The First And Second Causes Of Action Of Plaintiff's Complaint (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)
Defendant Albert Lee's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend for the reasons stated herein.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Karnazes filed a complaint against Lee on August 23, 2021 alleging two causes of action, an intentional tort of battery and a negligence claim, arising out of a February 7, 2019 interaction. Each cause of action identifies February 7, 2019 as the date of occurrence. Lee seeks judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. Karnazes filed a late opposition brief, which the court exercises its discretion to consider.
"A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim. . . . [The court] treats the properly pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, and also consider those matters subject to judicial notice. Moreover, the allegations must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties." (Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1401.)
The statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery and for negligence is two years from the date of the incident. (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 335.1; Gutierrez v. Tostado (Cal., July 31, 2025, No. S283128) 2025 WL 2169453, at *1 [applying "two-year statute of limitations for general negligence claims"]; Daley v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 595.)
Emergency Rule 9, promulgated during the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled the running of the limitations period from April 6, 2020, until October 1, 2020. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
"Whether a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted with or without leave to amend depends on whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment." (Mendoza, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1402.) Here, Karnazes's opposition offers no facts she could plead that would cure the defect.
The court has also considered whether alternative causes of action on the facts pled would be timely. A cause of action under 42 U.S.C., sec. 1983, would have the same two-year limitations period as a personal injury claim. (City of Huntington Park v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1297.) So, too, would violations of California's civil rights statutes that sound in common law tort. (Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 759.) The court therefore concludes that granting leave to amend would be futile. (end of tentative ruling part 1 see part 2) = (302/CVA) | |