ELIZABETH KARNAZES VS. ALBERT LEE ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC21594697 - October 28, 2025 Hearing date: October 28, 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: | | 2025-10-28 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate And Set Aside The Judgment And Order Granting Defendant'S Special Motion To Strike Pursuant To Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16, Entered September 2, 2025, Herein, Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, And Declaration Of Elizabeth Karnazes In Support Thereof | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for October 28, 2025, line 2.

PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH KARNAZES'S Motion To Vacate And Set Aside The Judgment And Order Granting Defendant's Special Motion To Strike Pursuant To Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16, Entered September 2, 2025, Herein.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Karnazes moves to vacate and set aside this court's judgment of dismissal, entered on September 24, 2025, after the court granted defendant Albert Lee's special motion to strike the complaint on September 2, 2025. The motion is denied.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), states in relevant part that "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."

Karnazes seeks relief on the basis of her inartful pleading and inartful briefing in opposition to Lee's anti-SLAPP motion to strike. She also presents newly-discovered photographs of alleged injuries she suffered from the incident. The court does not see a basis for relief under section 473.

With respect to the issue of inartful pleading and briefing or argument, Karnazes merely restates legal points made in her briefs and in argument at the hearing. The court believes it understands her arguments but ultimately is not persuaded, for the reasons set out in the court's September 2 order. In any event, the desire to make different arguments in opposition to a motion is not a basis for relief under section 473. (Wiz Technology, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.)

With respect to the newly discovery photographs, the court's order striking the complaint did not rest in prong two of the anti-SLAPP analysis on insufficient proof of injury but rather on the statute of limitations for the claims actually pled, assault and battery, and the lack of evidence of discriminatory motivation to support a Ralph Act claim. Because these photographs would not change the outcome of the anti-SLAPP motion, the court does not consider whether Karnazes's failure to present them earlier was excusable neglect.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |