Panzak v. City of Fowler CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 9, 2025 No. F088866Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint and the award of attorney's fees, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error and failed to preserve his claim of judicial disqualification.

Issues

Whether the trial court judge was disqualified from hearing the case.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motions to strike the first amended complaint.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the defendant.
Whether the defendants are entitled to appellate attorney's fees as prevailing parties.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Panzak’s failure to provide an adequate record in this appeal requires we uphold the trial court’s decision to grant the two motions brought by defendants to strike the first amended complaint.”

“Since all defendants have prevailed in this appeal, they are entitled to recover their costs and attorney’s fees related to this appeal.”

Filed 9/8/25 Panzak v. City of Fowler CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GORDON PANZAK, F088866 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 22CECG01769) v.

CITY OF FOWLER et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Gordon Panzak, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Alison P. Buchanan, and Laura C. Riparbelli for Defendant and Respondent Gregory L. Myers. Litigation Engineered, and Chester E. Walls for Defendants and Respondents City of Fowler, Dario Dominguez, Mark Rodriguez, Karnig Kazarian, Juan Mejia, Daniel Parra, Wilma Quan, Rudy Alcaraz, Yolanda Cardenas as Executor of the Estate of David T. Cardenas, and Angela Vasquez. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

In this appeal, appellant Gordon Panzak challenges the dismissal of an action he brought against 14 different defendants.1 Two respondents’ briefs have been filed. The first brief has been filed on behalf of the City of Fowler and 9 individuals employed or contracted by the City of Fowler. The second brief has been filed on behalf of Gregory Meyers alone. Following our review of the relevant issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 10, 2023, Panzak filed a first amended complaint for monetary damages, naming 14 different defendants. The complaint contained nine separate causes of action. Each cause of action was alleged against all 14 named defendants. The facts underlying the complaint concern the installation of two handicap sidewalk ramps on Panzak’s property in the City of Fowler. Among defendants named in the complaint are the City of Fowler, the contractor who installed the ramps, employees of the contractor, and one attorney. The bulk of defendants are represented under the umbrella of the City of Fowler, which includes not only the city, but also the contractor who installed the ramps and various employees of that contractor.2 Defendant Gregory Meyers, an attorney, has submitted a separate brief. Meyers apparently opposed Panzak in a prior lawsuit. Among the allegations in the first amended complaint are elder abuse,

Panzak v. City of Fowler CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief