Panzak v. City of Fowler CA5

Filed 12/12/25 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089137 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23CECG03031) v.

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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr., Judge. Gordon Panzak, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Litigation Engineered and Chester E. Walls for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Plaintiff Gordon Panzak, who has represented himself throughout this case, appeals from an order sustaining the demurrer of defendants City of Fowler (City) and five individual defendants1 (collectively, defendants) to his complaint without leave to amend. Panzak contends the trial judge should have recused himself because the judge’s

1 The individual defendants are Daniel Parra, Leonard Hammer, Mark Rodriguez, Karnig Kazarian, and Jeannie Davis, who was erroneously sued as Jennie Davis.

ruling showed he was biased against Panzak and the demurrer should not have been sustained without leave to amend because the statute of limitations, which the trial court found barred his complaint, was tolled. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Panzak provides a scant trial court record, from which we glean the following. In August 2017, Panzak filed a civil complaint against the City and seven City officials, which was assigned case No. 17CECG02635 (the 2017 action). Panzak’s third amended complaint in the 2017 action alleged that on August 1, 2016, a City crew, acting at the city manager’s direction, removed 40 mature hedge bushes and, during that process, bent and damaged poles that supported a chain link fence. The complaint further alleged that when Panzak contacted the city manager to complain, the city manager threatened to destroy the fence, bill Panzak for removing the bushes, and forcibly remove two outbuildings. Panzak alleged various causes of action, including elder abuse, emotional distress, and property-related claims. In July 2023, the trial court issued a tentative ruling sustaining the City’s demurrer to the third amended complaint without prejudice because Panzak failed to bring the action to trial within five years, as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360. The trial court determined Panzak was required to bring the 2017 action to trial by February 3, 2023, as the five-year period was extended six months due to an emergency rule enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court dismissed the action without prejudice, explaining that a judgment of dismissal based on a delay in prosecution is not made on the merits and does not have res judicata effect. In August 2023, Panzak filed a civil complaint against the City and five individual defendants, which was assigned case No. 23CECG03031 (the 2023 action), but the complaint is not in the appellate record. The register of actions in the 2023 action shows: (1) defendants filed a demurrer and a motion to strike in June 2024, each of which were supported by memorandums of points and authorities and declarations of their counsel;