Preview
John E. Ferry and Kirsten Ferry
P.O. Box 55621
Hayward, CA 94545
Phone: (650) 421-3655
Email: Not Available
Cross-Plaintiffs in pro per
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Case No. CIV524843
Plaintiff, CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
12 vs. OF MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE FIVE-
13 JOHN FERRY, YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
KIRSTEN PETERSEN, and
14 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Assigned Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman
Assigned Dept.: 4
15 Defendants.
(Unlimited Civil)
16 JOHN E. FERRY and
KIRSTEN FERRY, Date: February 13, 2024
17 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Cross-Plaintiffs, Dept.: 4
18 Judge: Nancy L. Fmeman
vs. Date Complaint Filed: October 21, 2013
19 Date Cross-Complaint Filed: October 8, 2014
ELIZABETH M.B. KARNAZES and Trial Date: None Set
20 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,
21 Cross-Defendants.
22
23
24
26
27
CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIVS24843, rcARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Most Recent Developments In This Case.
B. The Relevant Procedural Events To Date
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
10 A. There Will Be Significant Prejudice To All Concerned If This Court Finds
That The Five-Year Statute Of Limitations Has Already Expired.
12 B. This Case Now Requires A Proper Interpretation Of Vexatious Litigant Law ..
C. The Conduct Of The Proceedings Going Forward Will Benefit From An Order
14 That The Parties And Counsel Must Establish Electronic Service Agreements ..
15 D. A Sinister Possibility Lurks Beneath The Cross-Defendants'attern of Misconduct...
17 III. CONCLUSION
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, Ed RNd ZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
California Cases
Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 677
Ivfunoz v. City of Union City (2007) 148 Cal.4th 173, 178.
Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 562 2,3
10
California Codes
12
13 Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) .
14 Code of Civil Procedure section 36(f)
15 Code of Civil Procedure section 391(a) . .. 1, 10
16 Code of Civil Procedure section 391(c) . 10
17 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a-d) .
18 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a-b) . .. 10
19 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(c). .. 10
20 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(d). 1, 10
21 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(e). 1,10
22 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(g-h) .4
23 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(i) .
24 Code of Civil Procedure section 426.10, et seq.
25 Code of Civil Procedure section 475. .. 4, 8, 9
26 Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. . 8,9
27 Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410.
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KAttiMZES v. FEIMF, et ol., snd Related Cross-Action
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (con't.)
California Codes (con't.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 583 420.
Penal Code section 118(a)
Penal Code section 127
Penal Code section 129,
10 Penal Code section 132
Penal Code section 134.
12 Penal Code section 136.1(b) and (d).
13 Penal Code section 158-159 13
Penal Code section 528.5(a-c) 7,13
15 Penal Code section 530.5(a), (c)(1), and (d)(1) .. 13
16
17
18 California Rules of Court
19
20 Rules of Court rule 1.6(1-2) 1, 10
21 Rules of Court rule 3.110 . 13
22
23
24 Other Authorities
25
California Constitution, article VI, section 13
27
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, ICARIVAZES v. FERRY, er al, and Related Cross-Action tv
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Most Recent Developments In This Case.
On January 9, 2024, Cross-Plaintiff, KIRSTEN FERRY (hereinafter "KIRSTEN"), applied ex
parte to the Hon. Judge Nancy L. Fineman for a determination on the facts and issues presented by the
instant motion; her honor denied said application because she found that a noticed motion is required. In
association with said application, both of the cross-plaintiffs went on the previous day to the department
of the Presiding Judge (hereinafter "P I") to seek leave to go before Judge Fineman. The named parties
to this case are all self-represented, and have been declared vexatious litigants, against whom pre-filing
orders have also been made. (Code Civ. Proc. tj 391.7(a-d).) A fair reading of the applicable rules and
10 statutes demonstrates that there must first be a determination as to the merit of a proceeding before such
matters can go before the assigned judge. (Code Civ. Proc. $$ 391(a) and 391.7(d); CaL Rules of Ct.
12 rule 1.6(1-2).) Judicial staff in the P J's department disagreed with the cross-plaintiffs'nderstanding of
13 related law, so all three named parties will now benefit from this Court's interpretation, which will also
14 serve to assist the P J in the future. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 391.7(e).)
15 The cross-plaintiffs were doing the research required in order to seek leave to file a (proposed)
16 First Amended Cross-Complaint (hereinafter "FACC") and realized that it will be futile for them to
17 continue working on the FACC and related motion if the serious issues presented by this motion result in
16 a finding that the five-year statute has already expired. The handwritten order now in question, made by
the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Buchwald (ret.) and attached as Exhibit A to the cross-plaintiffs'ombined
20 declarations in support of this motion, must be addressed by Judge Fineman before further proceedings
may go forward on either the complaint or the cross-complaint. Unfort,unately, there are other important
22 issues that are intertwined in the primary purpose of this motion, and those issues are equally relevant
23 and must be ruled on in conjunction with ruling on this motion, all of which is discussed further below.
24 The true facts associated with the developments in this case are v~e revealing and must be made a part
25 of the record - what is being discussed is a criminal course of conduct that also involves felonies.
26 It is noteworthy that, although Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ELIZABETH M.B. KARNAZES
27 was advised in January as to the issues presented by this motion, she has taken no position, which may
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS 8t AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARiVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
speak to one of the reasons for approaching the court. KIRSTEN specifically and repeatedly noticed
KARNAZES - both telephonically and in writing - on the fact that the email addresses that each of the
cross-plaintiffs have established for case-related purposes have not been functioning properly for a year,
and thus, are no longer available for case purposes; a related Notice of Change of Address has also been
served and filed. It has become clear that, in response, KARNAZES engaged in a connived flurry of
activity designed to coincide with the four different voice mails that KIRSTEN left on January 7 and 8,
2024, regarding the above ex parte application. As shown by the online register of actions, KARNAZES
back-dated a letter to defense counsel and then used it as an exhibit to her self-serving declaration, after
which she ~falsel claimed that she had not been given proper notice on said application by way of an
10 email to this Court that she knew would not reach the cross-plaintiffs. Cumulative evidence shows that
KARNAZES deliberately avoided using her phone in order to enable her ongoing noticing violations.
12 This is not the first time that she has violated her duties. A careful examination of the proofs of service
13 (hereinafter "POS") filed on her behalf during the last eight years shows that the same signature has been
14 recvcled throughout that time. (Pen. Code tj$ 118(a), 127, 129, 132, and 134.) The cross-plaintiffs have
15 repeatedly filed declarations and exhibits in support of related objections in multiple courts.
The supporting motion declarations show that KARNAZES deliberatelv avoided discharging her
17 duties and, knowing that she would not receive the ex parte application documents until January 9, 2024,
18 lied to this Court in her January 8th email, as well as in a contrived declaration that she ostensibly filed
in response to the pending defense motion for summary judgment (hereinafter nMSJ").
20
Cross-Plaintiffs'eclaration
exhibits show that their ex parte documents reached KARNAZES at 9:33 a.m., a full four
21 hours before that calendar was called. As discussed further below nnd in the supporting declarations,
22 she continues to use her highly suspect illness/injury claims in order to shield herself and to operate
23 behind her opposing parties'acks - and she has been doinn this for the last eiuht vears.
24 B. The Relevant Procedural Events To Date.
The record shows that the cross-plaintiffs learned of this action during early 2014, after which
26 they acted to preserve their rights by filing their answer and compulsory cross-complaint, whereby their
27 voluntary appearances were made. (Code Civ. Proc. ( 426.10, et st.; Salahutdin v. Valley of Calif., Inc.
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS ec AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, K4ttP/AZES v. FEEI/I Y, et al., and Related Cross-Action
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 562.) They also sought a stay of all proceedings pending the outcome of
other cases involving one or more of the parties to this action. On October 31, 2014, their motion was
denied, in part, and only the proceedings on the complaint were stayed, however, on November 25th, the
judge seated on the initial case management conference placed a stay on this entire case. This beuan the
confusinu and cumbersome series of stavs that now reauire this Court's attention.
In 2015, the cross-plaintiffs learned of the duty to defend on the part of their prior auto insurance
carrier (hereinafter "Progressive"), so the defense to the complaint was initially tendered to a Redwood
City law firm (hereinafter "Coddington"), which substituted into this case on July 31, 2015. Six years
later, a grave illness befell the managing partner at Coddington and numerous cases were transferred to
10 other law firms so, on December 21, 2021, the assigned attorney, Daphne A. Beletsis, on behalf of a
Santa Rosa firm (hereinafter "Perry" ) substituted into this case. Progressive initially required the cross-
12 plaintiffs to sign a reservation of rights, and directed both Coddington and Perry not to handle the cross-
13 complaint, a situation that caused some concern for (ret.) Judge Buchwald; related matters are discussed,
14 in part, near the conclusion of this memorandum.
15 Among the reasons for the improper delays that have occurred is that KARNAZES has been
suppressing the true facts, one of which is that San Mateo Case No. CIV512442 was pending and was —
17 being served - at the time of the alleged incident discussed in the complaint. The evidence demonstrates
18 the likelihood that KARNAZES has perpetrated insurance fraud by filing this case, and that her devious
19 plot was foiled when the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office (hereinafter "DA") dismissed the
20 second of four criminal cases that KARNAZES knowingly excited against KIRSTEN absent probable
21 cause. (Pen. Code $$ 136.1(b) and (d).) It was not until after that April 2, 2015, dismissal, which served
22 to erode the basis for the sham complaint in this action, that KARNAZES'uspect illness/injury claims
commenced, and the supporting declarations hereto reflect that she may still be trying to trick the DA
24 into doing her dirty work as a part of maintaining her efforts to harass and nunish the cross-plaintiffs.
25 There are other relevant details that this Court may want to review, which are discussed in much
26 greater length in KIRSTEN'S recent ex parte application documents, to which this Court may refer for
further information regarding pertinent events and circumstances and related legal arguments,
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIVS24S43, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Rotated Cross-Action
The stay was lifted on December I, 2015, and, during February of 2016, the cross-defendants
commenced their ongoing pattern and practice of failing and refusing to serve KARNAZES'ocuments
on the cross-plaintiffs. This included the first of the cross-defendants'audulent notices purporting to
staythis case; an anti-SLAPP motion was also filed that placed a partial stay on the cross-action. (Code
Civ. Proc. $ 425.16(g-h).) When that motion and the renewed motion were denied, another stay was
placed on the cross-complaint by the filing of a frivolous appeal on November 2, 2016. (Code Civ. Proc.
I'1 425.16(i).) That appeal was dismissed on February 17, 2017, the remittitur issued on May 5th, and a
general denial was filed on June 6, 2017, which pleads 58 affirmative defenses to the cross-complaint.
Also during 2016, KARNAZES commenced her pattern of making vague claims that she could
10 not proceed due to some sort of illness/injury, the true nature of which has never actuallv been disclosed
to the cross-plaintiffs, however, given the highly suspect timing on her motions to disqualify two of the
12 court' judges - who had just issued tentative rulings against her - the veracity of her claims is squarely
13 at issue. Said challenges were filed on September 19, 2016, and January 20, 2017, respectively, along
14 with various notices purporting to stay all of the proceedings, but the cross-plaintiffs have not been able
15 to locate any authority for the proposition that such challenges impose blanket stays on any case. In spite
16 of the fact that Coddington argued these and other matters before the various judges who have made
17 their rulings over time, ~AZES has persistently disregarded applicable law, so Judge Fineman's
18 assistance is now required because the important legal issues presented hereby must finally be settled.
KARNAZES has not complied with most of her duties, instead making &ivolous objections and
20 using dubious illness/injury claims in order to prevent this case from moving forward. She stipulated to
21 a continuance of the hearing on Coddington's initial MS J, filed on July 28, 2017, but then a notice of
22 unavailability was filed on her behalf a few days later that conflicted with the new MS I hearing date.
23 She also evaded the motion to compel filed by Cross-Plaintiff JOHN E. FERRY (hereinafter "JOHN" ),
24 which sought her explanation for her 58 aQirmative defenses; she claimed that she wasn't served and,
25 when that strategy was not successful, further stays of proceedings were obtained, whereby the hearing
26 on the MS J was continued to May 25, 2018. Unfortunately, the ensuing negligent case management on
27 the part of (ret.) Judge Buchwald now requires this Court's corrective action. (Code Civ. Proc. II 475.)
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action
Based upon the need to properly examine KARNAZES'llness/injury claims, his honor initially
made orders on or about December 17, 2017, but she did not obey those orders and his honor did not
enforce them. On May 23, 2018, knowing that opposing parties and counsel would not receive her ex
parte documents until the next day, KARNAZES deliberately left garbled phone messages during the
wee hours in order to mislead them. She thereby claimed to only be seeking continuances on all of the
hearings on the parties'ending motions, and the record shows that the oppositions filed by Coddington
and by JOHN did not include arguments related to her legally improper effort to obtain a stay of all
proceedings. The related order was granted and it included a briefing schedule on the parties'otions,
along with an August 1, 2018, expiration of the stay so, on that day, Coddington filed a defense joinder
10 to an earlier sua sponte motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc. ) $
583 A10 and 583.420.)
12 Some of the cross-defendants know that JOHN (who is now 76 years of age) suffers with cardiac
13 disease as a result of Agent Orange exposure, yet they have deliberately exacerbated his condition over
the last 14 years. The increasing stress has taken a terrible toll on both of the cross-plaintiffs, who have
15 concurrently preserved and litigated their rights in the courts affected by the unresolved controversies
16 amongst the parties to this case. JOHN'S heart attack gave rise to Coddington's motion on August 14,
17 2018, for trial setting preference (Code Civ. Proc. $ 36(a)); two days after said filing, the court denied
18 another of KARNAZES'uspect ex parte applications for another stay, however, before the PJ could
19 rule on said preference motion, improper stays were used to avoid the statute. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 36(f).)
20 Judge Buchwald imposed a stay of proceedings on September 5, 2018, which was set to expire
21 on October 5th, but his honor was in trial on that date, so the stay was then extended to November 26th,
22 and then to January 7, 2019, and then again to March 8, 2019. His honor was in nial on that date too, so
23 he made another order that extended the stay absent anv sunset date. Coddington obtained his honor's
agreement to get relevant information directly &om KARNAZES'octors but he never signed a related
25 order; the reason given (four times) was that he couldn't find the documents submitted by Coddington.
26 Meanwhile, using a tactic similar to that used recently when contacting Judge Fineman, KARNAZES
27 commenced a pattern and practice of making improper ex parte contacts with Judge Buchwald, via email
CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS St AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARlAZES v. FERRY, et at., and Related Cross-Action
and on which the cross-plaintiffs were never copied; Coddington was not always copied either, but the
department clerk included everyone when responding.
It was not until June 26, 2019, that his honor took action, at which time a status conference was
set, however, and similar to a tactic that KARNAZES used in the San Francisco Court, that order was
based upon a different order in a different case that had been made by the PJ. Review of this case was
set for September 19, 2019, then extended to December 2nd, then re-set to January 24, 2020, after which
the pandemic gave rise to various stays of proceedings in all of the California Courts. At some point
during 2020, the San Mateo Court shifted from master calendar to direct calendar, but this case was not
assigned to a direct calendar judge; according to Judge Buchwald, and despite the fact that he was a trial
10 judge, on or about June 11, 2020, the PJ requested that his honor accept the assignment of this case for
all purposes. Another status conference was set for February 11th, then re-set to May 15th, and then to
12 June 19th, and then again to July 13, 2020; his honor then continued this case to another undisclosed
13 point in October of 2020. Judge Buchwald persistently failed to discharge the duty to establish a clear
14 record, which does not set forth why said status conference was re-set to February 11, 2021, and then to
15 February 23, 2021; the day before, KARNAZES made another improper, eleventh hour request for yet
16 another stay of proceedings. This brings us to the ambiguous handwritten order of February 22, 2021,
17 which evidences an element of the somewhat understandable albeit negligent case management that
18 Judge Buchwald demonstrated while improperly tasked with the full oversight of this action.
19 His honor's order states that the February 23, 2021, status conference was "mistakenly" set, and
20 said order includes a sunset date of March 5. 2021, for the stay, yet the cross-plaintiffs understood that
21 said date applied to setting another status conference, and that the stay still remained in effect. This is
22 further evidenced by the fact that neither the court nor defense counsel nor the parties took any further
23 action; all concerned were treating this entire case as having remained stayed, an understanding that
24 was augmented by the status shown in the online register of actions being maintained by the Court Clerk.
25 This case was visited by a variety of developments during the remainder of 2021, apparently including
26 the retirement of Judge Buchwald, as well as the grave illness that befell Coddington's managing partner
27 (discussed above), but it wasn't until April 5, 2022, that this case was reassigned to Judge Fineman.
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS sa AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524S43, KARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
Promptly on April 29, 2022, Perry moved ex parte for an order allowing Ms. Beletsis to review
KARNAZES'onfidential medical records; the handwritten note on the order states that it "modifies"
Judge Buchwald's order of June 26, 2019. The confusion was added to when the Court Clerk would not
comply with Judge Fineman's order, a situation that was not subsequently resolved. On July 27, 2022,
the court ordered that a case management and trial setting conference be set for August 23, 2022, which
caused Perry to ask for a determination regarding the stay, in turn causing yet another wee hours voice
mail message on the day of the conference; predictably, KARNAZES requested yet another of her many
eleventh hour continuances. Perry appeared for the August hearing, at which the court continued case
management to January 24, 2023, absent anv mention of the stav so, on November 3, 2022, Perry moved
10 to lift the stay and reopen discovery, as well as to set trial and for another order allowing Ms. Beletsis to
review KARNAZES'edical records. Predictably, she applied ex parte on December 6, 2022, for yet
12 another stay, again absent service on the cross-plaintiffs, which is why they neither appeared nor sought
the court's action on the multiple requests for clarificatio on the status of this case. Perry appeared but
14 the case status was not fully addressed and, instead, it remained stayed until April 30, 2023.
15 Although a more detailed discussion is presented in another section of this memorandum, two
16 relevant facts must be noted here, one that the cross-defendants fabricated yet another POS and thereby
17 perpetrated yet another fraud on the court (Pen. Code $ 528.5(a-c)) in association with the December
18 2022 ex parte application, and the other is that said application contains conflicting references. In one
19 section it is requested, "that the court continue to stay all proceedings pending recovery of Plaintiff from
20 the serious health issues she is currently experiencing," whereas another section states that KARNAZES
21 had, "been granted stays" and "needs a stay for the case in chief." This is relevant to whether she has
22 been utilizing another bad faith strategy, thus calling into question a factor associated with this motion.
23 The P J denied KARNAZES'x parte application for yet another stay on May 8, 2023, after
24 which yet another such application was denied on July 10th; the PJ also denied Perry's motion to declare
25 KARNAZES a vexatious litigant on that day. Thankfully, on October I I, 2023, such an order was made
26 sua sponte by the appellate court, whereby a pre-filing order was also imposed upon her. (The combined
27 declarations in support of this motion discuss the cross-defendants'attern of fi'aud, deceit, and bad faith
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843. KA RNAZES v. FERRY, et a!., and Related Cross-Action
that gave rise to such orders being imposed upon both of the cross-plaintiffs.) On September 26, 2023,
Perry re-filed the MSJ. Rather than meet the burden to defend the complaint, KARNAZES disputed
service on the moving papers, absent any discussion of the 5-year statute of limitations. Although Judge
Fineman's ruling favored Perry's arguments, her honor continued the MS J hearing to March 19, 2024,
which is not long aller the hearing on this motion.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. There Will Be Significant Prejudice To All Concerned If This Court Finds That
The Five-Year Statute Of Limitations Has Already Expired.
The court, the parties, and defense counsel have exhibited varying states of confusion regarding
10 the status of this case, and the judges of the San Mateo Court have not acted to properly clarify the affect
of the stays of proceedings to date. The record shows that, prior to retirement, Judge Buchwald was not
12 able to properly manage this case, and that the bench has failed to address the many stays that his honor
13 imposed - along with the other stays imposed by other judges. The defects associated with his honor's
14 conflicting orders over time serves to establish a pattern that is relevant to the determination that must
15 now be made but, in all fairnes, the San Mateo Court shares in the responsibility for the many problems
16 that arose because the PJ did not promptly assign this case to a direct calendar judge.
17 When the stay was lifted in mid-2023, Cross-Plaintiffs continued their work on the (proposed)
18 FACC but, upon realizing during October that a serious issue must be properly addressed, they promptly
19 asked Coddington, Perry, and Progressive for the help that they need; for two months, no representative
20 of said entities was able to assist. KARNAZES has been the one imposing and/or obtaining the stays,
21 and even though there are legitimate questions surrounding her related claims, she appears to want to
22 proceed competently on the complaint. These are the reasons why Judge Fineman is now being asked to
23 undertake the complicated calculations associated with ruling on this motion.
Judge Buchwald's handwritten order of February 22, 2021„which is Exhibit A to the cross-
plaintiffs'upporting declarations, constitutes prejudicial error because the parties will sustain and suffer
26 substantial injury if there is a determination that the 5-year statute of limitations has already expired,
27 such that a different result would be probable if that defect and related error had not occurred or existed.
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIVS24843, JCAIIIVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
(Code Civ. Proc. $$ 475 and 583.310.)
"A judgment may not be reversed on appeal, ... unless 'after an examination of the entire
cause, including the evidence,'t appears the error caused a 'miscarriage of justice.'Cal.
Const., art. VI, 5 13) When the error is one of state law only, it generally does not warrant
reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result
more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached. (citations omitted)
However, where the error results in denial of a fair hearing, the error is reversible per se.
(citations omitted)" (Kelly v. New g est Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659,
677.)
This case has lingered on the court's dockets for 10 years, during which time KARNAZES has
engaged in highly suspect and elaborate efforts to impede the proceedings, aided by the fraudulent and
fabricated POS that are persistent elements of the cross-defendants'attern of misconduct, which are
10 also elements of KARNAZES'fforts to invoke plausible denial. The delays that have plagued this
litigation ever since defense counsel became involved have also persisted, amidst (likely premeditated)
12 activity that has resulted in KARNAZES being given the benefit of every doubt that has arisen. A ruling
on tins motion that results in the termination of this entire action will only give rise to more litigation, so
14 this Court should find that Judge Buchwald's order does not govern the above calculation, which must
15 be made for the purpose of determining the current status of the diferent statutory deadlines that apply
16 to the complaint and to the cross-complaint.
17 Regardless of the manner in which the conduct of this entire action has been handled (leaving
various court officers appearing gullible, recalcitrant, or incompetent), the status of the 5-year statute of
19 limitations must be assessed and corrective action must be taken on the error associated with (ret.) Judge
20 Buchwald's order of February 21, 2021. Cross-Plaintiffs are at a loss as to how to calculate the statutory
21 deadlines, and neither counsel nor KARNAZES have proven to be of any assistance, so the parties must
22 rely on the learned jurisprudence of Judge Fineman, who should grant this motion in association with
finding that the alleged sunset date of March 5, 2021, given in his honor's order does not govern.
24 B. This Case Now Requires A Proper Interpretation Of Vexatious Litigant Law.
25 On January 8, 2024, judicial staff refused to allow Cross-Plaintiffs access to the P J's department
26 in order to address the legal issues intertwined in this motion. Among the purposes of vexatious litigant
27 law is to avoid an endless roundelay of &ivolous litigation, so the related interests of brevity allow this
26 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS St AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action
motion to now be brought directly before Judge Fineman, who is authorized to act in the place and stead
of the PJ under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(e). As shown by the supporting declarations, the
PJ did not know that related matters required attention because judicial staff acted on authority that does
not rest with them, and then merely relayed information through that department' bailiff.
"The presiding justice or presiding judge of a court may designate a justice or judge of the same
court to act on his or her behalf in exercising the authorities and responsibilities provided under
subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive." (Code Civ. Proc. (j 391.7(e).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (a), sets forth the definition of "Litigation," as
"any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court," and
10 Subdivision (c) specifically includes "maintained or caused to be maintained" in provisions related to
how vexafious litigants may proceed. Section 391.7, Subdivision (d), discusses "litigation," as being
12 "any petition, application, or motion ... for any order," and makes reference to the Family and Probate
13 Codes in providing an exception related to a discovery motion. The California Rules of Court, at Rule
14 L6(1-2), includes in the definition of "action" a "special proceeding," and defines a "case" by including
15 "action or proceeding." Further, Section 391.7, Subdivision (c), states that, "litigation" shall be stayed if
leave to proceed is not obtained fiom the P J, while Subdivisions (a-b) discuss the fact that such parties
17 risk contempt findings if they don't get such permission, and if the P J finds that "the litigation has (no)
18 merit," or that it has "been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay."
19 When a pre-filing order is in place, the determination of a P J is required as to whether there is an
20 improper purpose associated with a proceeding before it can go forward before a given judge in a given
21 court, There are many different types of proceedings that go forward in the courts, and the Legislature
22 has given the above list of definitions with the intention that the same should govern the scope of such
activity, and to provide guidance to jurists, court officers, and self-represented parties so affected. There
24 is plain language in these established definitions - cases, actions, special proceedings, petitions, motions,
and applications for orders - and exceptions are carved out for discovery motions in both the Family and
26 Probate Courts; said language also makes reference to any proceeding that is "pending in any state or
federal court." An unfiled case can neither be nendina nor maintained. and no motion or annlication can
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS 8r. AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, ICARNAZES v. FERRY, er aI, and Related Cross-Action
be made in an unfiled case: further. a case that has been filed must be maintained bv wav of litigating
various tvnes of nroceedinus. a few of which miuht be netitions for certain orders.
Given the spirit of vexatious litigant law and the requirement that literal meaning is to be given
to unambiguous language intended to be in harmony with the purpose of the law, a fair reading that
comports with the legislative intent demonstrates that the judicial officers in the p J's department gave
incorrect instruction to the cross-plaintiffs on January 8, 2024. As an alternative to imposing burdens on
the P J every time either JOHN, KIRSTEN, or KARNAZES seeks to move this Court, the PJ is allowed
to designate the assigned judge as the oversight authority in relation to said parties'ro per litigation
going forward, thereby (hopefully) insuring that the proceedings will not be attended by Iiivolity.
10 There can be no improper purpose in determining the status of the five-year statute of limitations
because all concerned have overlooked a prior order that could serve to curtail any further proceedings.
12 In association with ruling on this motion, and given that judicial staff refused to allow Cross-Plaintiffs
access to the P J's department, Judge Fineman can exercise appropriate judicial discretion by consulting
14 with the P J so that related direction can be provided to these pro Jrer parties for future reference.
15 C. The Conduct Of The Proceedings Going Forward Will Benefit From An Order
That The Parties And Counsel Must Establish Electronic Service Agreements.
16
17 The record does not show if Judge Fineman was influenced by the carefully structured lies that
18 KARNAZES told in relation to KIRSTEN'S ex parte application, which present yet another example of
19 the established patterns and practices that continue to define KARNAZES'ad faith litigation strategy.
20 Her uncured noticing violations and efforts to perpetrate Iraud upon the court have been aggravating
21 factors throughout these parties'nteractions. Cross-Plaintiffs'upporting declarations discuss the true
22 facts in greater detail. Even before JOHN hired KARNAZES in 2010, her suspect mental health claims
were giving rise to her suspect delay tactics (an issue that contributed to the 2012 recommendation for
24 her disbarment), however, after her psychiatrist disobeyed a duly served subpoena in 2015, said claims
25 were replaced by the equally suspect physical health claims that have since plagued her cases.
26 Judge Fineman should examine the need to make an order that the parties and counsel enter in to
27 mutual electronic service agreements, an order that should be made irrespective of objections because
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARiVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
such an order would serve to resolve some of the issues being discussed herein. The one-sided benefits
that KARNAZES has derived from her fraudulent POS and related strategies have subjected the cross-
plaintiffs to undue prejudice throughout the course of the proceedings, and the order being requested
should serve to curtail these violations. (Case specific email addresses for KARNAZES and Cross-
Plaintiffs are simple measures that can be undertaken free of charge and could be included in the order.)
Among the true facts is that KARNAZES has established numerous highly suspect patterns and
practices, all of which have aided her in avoiding liability and the merits of any and all related claims,
whether made by her or by her opposing parties or by opposing counsel. The public record in this and
other cases evidences that said patterns have been demonstrated for at least 15 years in every court where
10 she has operated, along with the pattern of extensive delay that has plagued every such action, and that
her strategies have been designed to enable her improper purposes, one of which is to grant herself
12 unfettered latitude to engage in the conduct complained of against her, not only by the cross-plaintiffs
but also by others. This misconduct is often accompanied by KARNAZES'ack-dated documents and
the suspect POS that have enabled her to operate in the courts where this activity has been occurring,
15 giving rise to many opposing parties'equests for findings, supported by arguments that include, but are
not limited to, defective service of nrocess and violation of numerous statutes of limitations. The record
in the cases to which she has been a party also shows that she has a pattern of claiming defective service
18 on virtually every occasion involving litigation that requires her to meet a deadline and be accountable
19 for some sort of development that either goes to the weight of her case or her credibility.
20 The following is also noteworthy. For approximately two years, KARNAZES has been filing
21 documents electronically in all of the courts affected by her vexatious litigation and associated tactics,
22 yet as it pertains to this case, she refuses to establish any electronic service agreement while demanding
23 that defense counsel accept electronic service. She has demanded that opposing counsel and parties
24 shoulder the unnecessary burden and expense of serving her with paper documents, however, during a
25 hearing in December of 2023 on two other cases that involve all three named parties, she complained to
26 the PJ about the volume of documents that Cross-Plaintiffs have been required to serve on her as a result
27 of her self-serving strategy. KARNAZES'efusal to implement a mutual electronic service agreement
28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARVAZES v. FERRY, ei al., and Related Cross-Action 12
has enabled both her noticing violations and her frivolous claims regarding a non-existent
pattern on the
part of opposing counsel and parties, and this Court must now take long overdue corrective action.
KARNAZES'ersistent pattern of fabricating evidence and justifying her noticing violations are
a matter of record, as is the fact that the cross-defendants made no effort to serve the comnlaint for an
entire vear after it was filed, for which leave of court was not sought. (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.110.)
Further, her highly suspect illness/injury claims weren't made until after the DA dismissed the criminal
case that would have insured the cross-defendants'bility to prevail on the sham complaint in this case.
Three facts are additionally noteworihy. One is the egregious pattern evidenced by the San Francisco
Court record, which shows that KARNAZES has been using her known alias, "Betsy Barnson," in order
10 to target some of the deep pockets that have comprised at least balf of the list of her opposing parties
over many years'ime. (Pen. Code tj YJ 158-159.) Another is that KARNAZES has repeatedly invoked
12 plausible denial in order to avoid the fact that she has reneatedlv nublished the cross-nlaintiffs'ersonal
13 identifvinn information. which she has nrovided to counsel on behalf of other cross-defendants, (Pen.
14 Code tj ) 528.5(a-c) and 530.5(a), (c)(l), and (d)(l).) The third is evidenced by the combined, supporting
15 declarations to this motion, in that KIRSTEN has been the target for the ire of some cross-defendants
16 over the years, and particularly that of KARNAZES, and those cross-defendants know that her excited,
spontaneous, relevant, and admissible utterance is captured on police body camera footage.
16 KARNAZES is clearly capable of implementing the procedures associated with her use of the
19 electronic filing service(s) that she has been utilizing for approximately two years. This Court should be
20 able to recognize that none of her dubious claims regarding service would be a factor if the safeguards
21 associated with electronic service were in operation. KARNAZES refusal to establish such service
*
22 agreements serves to avoid solid evidence, not only of her noticing violations but also of her false claims
against these opposing parties and defense counsel and the true fact that would serve to weigh against
24 her credibility. As discussed in the next section, this entire case turns on the fact that she and other
25 cross-defendants have not been telling the truth to numerous judges and justices in numerous courts.
26 Judge Fineman has the discretion to order the parties and counsel to establish mutual electronic service
27 agreements, and her honor should do so in association with ruling on this motion,
26 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524S43, KIRYAZES v. FERRY, er ai., and Related Cross-Action 13
1 D. A Sinister Possibility Lurks Beneath The Cross-Defendants'attern Of Misconduct.
2 This is not the forum for a discussion of the issues presented by Cross-Plaintiffs'mpending
3 motion for leave to file the (proposed) FACC, but the matters intertwined in the need to rule on this
4 motion merit brief consideration because some of the cross-defendants have established a pattern that
5 directly affects the San Mateo Court. KARNAZES is not the only one who shifts responsibility for
6 misconduct that constitutes a pattern of fraud on the court, which has infected the proceedings in fom'
other jurisdictions and contemplates invited error, thus exposing six courts to miscarriage of justice.
8 "'The doctrine of invited error ... rests on the purpose of the principle, which is to prevent a party
9 from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court." (Munoz v. City of
10 Union City (2007) 148 Cal.4th 173, 178.)
11 There is a possibility that the cross-defendants have engineered the scenario contemplated by this
12 motion. A sinister aspect of their pattern involves their efforts to shift liability to unsuspecting attorneys
13 who have been hired in one setting or another over time by the individuals who are or will be parties to
14 the cross-action, if and when the (proposed) FACC is filed and fictitious does are named. If the order in
15 question is allowed to govern the calculation of the time lines affecting both the complaint and the cross-
16 complaint, then this entire action will be terminated, which would free all of the cross-defendants Irom
17 liability, reward KARNAZES for having successfully delayed this case (on behalf of herself and those
18 with whom she has likely conspired over an extended period of time), and expose Progressive and/or
19 Coddington and/or Perry to liability for not addressing the order in question three years ago.
20 The cross-defendants'attern is not confined solely to the misconduct in this case, one being the
21 pattern of causing frivolous delays. KARNAZES'uccess at doing so might affect the proceedings on
22 the pending defense MS J, which would not have factored in to the MS J filed by Coddington, Ostensibly
23 (to date), she has avoided her duty to present her defense to both MSJ, but the defense to the cross-action
24 is not solely confined to her - a conspiracy is alleged, and other matters have played out during the time
25 that this case has been pending, all of which has served to provide relevant and admissible evidence that
26 goes to the existence of that conspiracy. Had the cross-plaintiffs not raised the issues presented by this
27 motion before the hearing on the pending MSJ, the cross-defendants'attern and practice of fraud on the
CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS tF. AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR
A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action
Preview
John E. Ferry and Kirsten Ferry P.O. Box 55621 Hayward, CA 94545 Phone: (650) 421-3655 Email: Not Available Cross-Plaintiffs in pro per IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 ELIZABETH KARNAZES, Case No. CIV524843 Plaintiff, CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 12 vs. OF MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE FIVE- 13 JOHN FERRY, YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KIRSTEN PETERSEN, and 14 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Assigned Judge: Hon. Nancy L. Fineman Assigned Dept.: 4 15 Defendants. (Unlimited Civil) 16 JOHN E. FERRY and KIRSTEN FERRY, Date: February 13, 2024 17 Time: 2:00 p.m. Cross-Plaintiffs, Dept.: 4 18 Judge: Nancy L. Fmeman vs. Date Complaint Filed: October 21, 2013 19 Date Cross-Complaint Filed: October 8, 2014 ELIZABETH M.B. KARNAZES and Trial Date: None Set 20 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 21 Cross-Defendants. 22 23 24 26 27 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIVS24843, rcARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Most Recent Developments In This Case. B. The Relevant Procedural Events To Date II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 10 A. There Will Be Significant Prejudice To All Concerned If This Court Finds That The Five-Year Statute Of Limitations Has Already Expired. 12 B. This Case Now Requires A Proper Interpretation Of Vexatious Litigant Law .. C. The Conduct Of The Proceedings Going Forward Will Benefit From An Order 14 That The Parties And Counsel Must Establish Electronic Service Agreements .. 15 D. A Sinister Possibility Lurks Beneath The Cross-Defendants'attern of Misconduct... 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, Ed RNd ZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action TABLE OF AUTHORITIES California Cases Kelly v. New West Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 677 Ivfunoz v. City of Union City (2007) 148 Cal.4th 173, 178. Salahutdin v. Valley of California, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 562 2,3 10 California Codes 12 13 Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) . 14 Code of Civil Procedure section 36(f) 15 Code of Civil Procedure section 391(a) . .. 1, 10 16 Code of Civil Procedure section 391(c) . 10 17 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a-d) . 18 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a-b) . .. 10 19 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(c). .. 10 20 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(d). 1, 10 21 Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(e). 1,10 22 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(g-h) .4 23 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(i) . 24 Code of Civil Procedure section 426.10, et seq. 25 Code of Civil Procedure section 475. .. 4, 8, 9 26 Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. . 8,9 27 Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410. 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KAttiMZES v. FEIMF, et ol., snd Related Cross-Action TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (con't.) California Codes (con't.) Code of Civil Procedure section 583 420. Penal Code section 118(a) Penal Code section 127 Penal Code section 129, 10 Penal Code section 132 Penal Code section 134. 12 Penal Code section 136.1(b) and (d). 13 Penal Code section 158-159 13 Penal Code section 528.5(a-c) 7,13 15 Penal Code section 530.5(a), (c)(1), and (d)(1) .. 13 16 17 18 California Rules of Court 19 20 Rules of Court rule 1.6(1-2) 1, 10 21 Rules of Court rule 3.110 . 13 22 23 24 Other Authorities 25 California Constitution, article VI, section 13 27 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, ICARIVAZES v. FERRY, er al, and Related Cross-Action tv I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Most Recent Developments In This Case. On January 9, 2024, Cross-Plaintiff, KIRSTEN FERRY (hereinafter "KIRSTEN"), applied ex parte to the Hon. Judge Nancy L. Fineman for a determination on the facts and issues presented by the instant motion; her honor denied said application because she found that a noticed motion is required. In association with said application, both of the cross-plaintiffs went on the previous day to the department of the Presiding Judge (hereinafter "P I") to seek leave to go before Judge Fineman. The named parties to this case are all self-represented, and have been declared vexatious litigants, against whom pre-filing orders have also been made. (Code Civ. Proc. tj 391.7(a-d).) A fair reading of the applicable rules and 10 statutes demonstrates that there must first be a determination as to the merit of a proceeding before such matters can go before the assigned judge. (Code Civ. Proc. $$ 391(a) and 391.7(d); CaL Rules of Ct. 12 rule 1.6(1-2).) Judicial staff in the P J's department disagreed with the cross-plaintiffs'nderstanding of 13 related law, so all three named parties will now benefit from this Court's interpretation, which will also 14 serve to assist the P J in the future. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 391.7(e).) 15 The cross-plaintiffs were doing the research required in order to seek leave to file a (proposed) 16 First Amended Cross-Complaint (hereinafter "FACC") and realized that it will be futile for them to 17 continue working on the FACC and related motion if the serious issues presented by this motion result in 16 a finding that the five-year statute has already expired. The handwritten order now in question, made by the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Buchwald (ret.) and attached as Exhibit A to the cross-plaintiffs'ombined 20 declarations in support of this motion, must be addressed by Judge Fineman before further proceedings may go forward on either the complaint or the cross-complaint. Unfort,unately, there are other important 22 issues that are intertwined in the primary purpose of this motion, and those issues are equally relevant 23 and must be ruled on in conjunction with ruling on this motion, all of which is discussed further below. 24 The true facts associated with the developments in this case are v~e revealing and must be made a part 25 of the record - what is being discussed is a criminal course of conduct that also involves felonies. 26 It is noteworthy that, although Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ELIZABETH M.B. KARNAZES 27 was advised in January as to the issues presented by this motion, she has taken no position, which may 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS 8t AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARiVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action speak to one of the reasons for approaching the court. KIRSTEN specifically and repeatedly noticed KARNAZES - both telephonically and in writing - on the fact that the email addresses that each of the cross-plaintiffs have established for case-related purposes have not been functioning properly for a year, and thus, are no longer available for case purposes; a related Notice of Change of Address has also been served and filed. It has become clear that, in response, KARNAZES engaged in a connived flurry of activity designed to coincide with the four different voice mails that KIRSTEN left on January 7 and 8, 2024, regarding the above ex parte application. As shown by the online register of actions, KARNAZES back-dated a letter to defense counsel and then used it as an exhibit to her self-serving declaration, after which she ~falsel claimed that she had not been given proper notice on said application by way of an 10 email to this Court that she knew would not reach the cross-plaintiffs. Cumulative evidence shows that KARNAZES deliberately avoided using her phone in order to enable her ongoing noticing violations. 12 This is not the first time that she has violated her duties. A careful examination of the proofs of service 13 (hereinafter "POS") filed on her behalf during the last eight years shows that the same signature has been 14 recvcled throughout that time. (Pen. Code tj$ 118(a), 127, 129, 132, and 134.) The cross-plaintiffs have 15 repeatedly filed declarations and exhibits in support of related objections in multiple courts. The supporting motion declarations show that KARNAZES deliberatelv avoided discharging her 17 duties and, knowing that she would not receive the ex parte application documents until January 9, 2024, 18 lied to this Court in her January 8th email, as well as in a contrived declaration that she ostensibly filed in response to the pending defense motion for summary judgment (hereinafter nMSJ"). 20 Cross-Plaintiffs'eclaration exhibits show that their ex parte documents reached KARNAZES at 9:33 a.m., a full four 21 hours before that calendar was called. As discussed further below nnd in the supporting declarations, 22 she continues to use her highly suspect illness/injury claims in order to shield herself and to operate 23 behind her opposing parties'acks - and she has been doinn this for the last eiuht vears. 24 B. The Relevant Procedural Events To Date. The record shows that the cross-plaintiffs learned of this action during early 2014, after which 26 they acted to preserve their rights by filing their answer and compulsory cross-complaint, whereby their 27 voluntary appearances were made. (Code Civ. Proc. ( 426.10, et st.; Salahutdin v. Valley of Calif., Inc. 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS ec AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, K4ttP/AZES v. FEEI/I Y, et al., and Related Cross-Action (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 555, 562.) They also sought a stay of all proceedings pending the outcome of other cases involving one or more of the parties to this action. On October 31, 2014, their motion was denied, in part, and only the proceedings on the complaint were stayed, however, on November 25th, the judge seated on the initial case management conference placed a stay on this entire case. This beuan the confusinu and cumbersome series of stavs that now reauire this Court's attention. In 2015, the cross-plaintiffs learned of the duty to defend on the part of their prior auto insurance carrier (hereinafter "Progressive"), so the defense to the complaint was initially tendered to a Redwood City law firm (hereinafter "Coddington"), which substituted into this case on July 31, 2015. Six years later, a grave illness befell the managing partner at Coddington and numerous cases were transferred to 10 other law firms so, on December 21, 2021, the assigned attorney, Daphne A. Beletsis, on behalf of a Santa Rosa firm (hereinafter "Perry" ) substituted into this case. Progressive initially required the cross- 12 plaintiffs to sign a reservation of rights, and directed both Coddington and Perry not to handle the cross- 13 complaint, a situation that caused some concern for (ret.) Judge Buchwald; related matters are discussed, 14 in part, near the conclusion of this memorandum. 15 Among the reasons for the improper delays that have occurred is that KARNAZES has been suppressing the true facts, one of which is that San Mateo Case No. CIV512442 was pending and was — 17 being served - at the time of the alleged incident discussed in the complaint. The evidence demonstrates 18 the likelihood that KARNAZES has perpetrated insurance fraud by filing this case, and that her devious 19 plot was foiled when the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office (hereinafter "DA") dismissed the 20 second of four criminal cases that KARNAZES knowingly excited against KIRSTEN absent probable 21 cause. (Pen. Code $$ 136.1(b) and (d).) It was not until after that April 2, 2015, dismissal, which served 22 to erode the basis for the sham complaint in this action, that KARNAZES'uspect illness/injury claims commenced, and the supporting declarations hereto reflect that she may still be trying to trick the DA 24 into doing her dirty work as a part of maintaining her efforts to harass and nunish the cross-plaintiffs. 25 There are other relevant details that this Court may want to review, which are discussed in much 26 greater length in KIRSTEN'S recent ex parte application documents, to which this Court may refer for further information regarding pertinent events and circumstances and related legal arguments, 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIVS24S43, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Rotated Cross-Action The stay was lifted on December I, 2015, and, during February of 2016, the cross-defendants commenced their ongoing pattern and practice of failing and refusing to serve KARNAZES'ocuments on the cross-plaintiffs. This included the first of the cross-defendants'audulent notices purporting to staythis case; an anti-SLAPP motion was also filed that placed a partial stay on the cross-action. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 425.16(g-h).) When that motion and the renewed motion were denied, another stay was placed on the cross-complaint by the filing of a frivolous appeal on November 2, 2016. (Code Civ. Proc. I'1 425.16(i).) That appeal was dismissed on February 17, 2017, the remittitur issued on May 5th, and a general denial was filed on June 6, 2017, which pleads 58 affirmative defenses to the cross-complaint. Also during 2016, KARNAZES commenced her pattern of making vague claims that she could 10 not proceed due to some sort of illness/injury, the true nature of which has never actuallv been disclosed to the cross-plaintiffs, however, given the highly suspect timing on her motions to disqualify two of the 12 court' judges - who had just issued tentative rulings against her - the veracity of her claims is squarely 13 at issue. Said challenges were filed on September 19, 2016, and January 20, 2017, respectively, along 14 with various notices purporting to stay all of the proceedings, but the cross-plaintiffs have not been able 15 to locate any authority for the proposition that such challenges impose blanket stays on any case. In spite 16 of the fact that Coddington argued these and other matters before the various judges who have made 17 their rulings over time, ~AZES has persistently disregarded applicable law, so Judge Fineman's 18 assistance is now required because the important legal issues presented hereby must finally be settled. KARNAZES has not complied with most of her duties, instead making &ivolous objections and 20 using dubious illness/injury claims in order to prevent this case from moving forward. She stipulated to 21 a continuance of the hearing on Coddington's initial MS J, filed on July 28, 2017, but then a notice of 22 unavailability was filed on her behalf a few days later that conflicted with the new MS I hearing date. 23 She also evaded the motion to compel filed by Cross-Plaintiff JOHN E. FERRY (hereinafter "JOHN" ), 24 which sought her explanation for her 58 aQirmative defenses; she claimed that she wasn't served and, 25 when that strategy was not successful, further stays of proceedings were obtained, whereby the hearing 26 on the MS J was continued to May 25, 2018. Unfortunately, the ensuing negligent case management on 27 the part of (ret.) Judge Buchwald now requires this Court's corrective action. (Code Civ. Proc. II 475.) 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action Based upon the need to properly examine KARNAZES'llness/injury claims, his honor initially made orders on or about December 17, 2017, but she did not obey those orders and his honor did not enforce them. On May 23, 2018, knowing that opposing parties and counsel would not receive her ex parte documents until the next day, KARNAZES deliberately left garbled phone messages during the wee hours in order to mislead them. She thereby claimed to only be seeking continuances on all of the hearings on the parties'ending motions, and the record shows that the oppositions filed by Coddington and by JOHN did not include arguments related to her legally improper effort to obtain a stay of all proceedings. The related order was granted and it included a briefing schedule on the parties'otions, along with an August 1, 2018, expiration of the stay so, on that day, Coddington filed a defense joinder 10 to an earlier sua sponte motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc. ) $ 583 A10 and 583.420.) 12 Some of the cross-defendants know that JOHN (who is now 76 years of age) suffers with cardiac 13 disease as a result of Agent Orange exposure, yet they have deliberately exacerbated his condition over the last 14 years. The increasing stress has taken a terrible toll on both of the cross-plaintiffs, who have 15 concurrently preserved and litigated their rights in the courts affected by the unresolved controversies 16 amongst the parties to this case. JOHN'S heart attack gave rise to Coddington's motion on August 14, 17 2018, for trial setting preference (Code Civ. Proc. $ 36(a)); two days after said filing, the court denied 18 another of KARNAZES'uspect ex parte applications for another stay, however, before the PJ could 19 rule on said preference motion, improper stays were used to avoid the statute. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 36(f).) 20 Judge Buchwald imposed a stay of proceedings on September 5, 2018, which was set to expire 21 on October 5th, but his honor was in trial on that date, so the stay was then extended to November 26th, 22 and then to January 7, 2019, and then again to March 8, 2019. His honor was in nial on that date too, so 23 he made another order that extended the stay absent anv sunset date. Coddington obtained his honor's agreement to get relevant information directly &om KARNAZES'octors but he never signed a related 25 order; the reason given (four times) was that he couldn't find the documents submitted by Coddington. 26 Meanwhile, using a tactic similar to that used recently when contacting Judge Fineman, KARNAZES 27 commenced a pattern and practice of making improper ex parte contacts with Judge Buchwald, via email CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS St AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARlAZES v. FERRY, et at., and Related Cross-Action and on which the cross-plaintiffs were never copied; Coddington was not always copied either, but the department clerk included everyone when responding. It was not until June 26, 2019, that his honor took action, at which time a status conference was set, however, and similar to a tactic that KARNAZES used in the San Francisco Court, that order was based upon a different order in a different case that had been made by the PJ. Review of this case was set for September 19, 2019, then extended to December 2nd, then re-set to January 24, 2020, after which the pandemic gave rise to various stays of proceedings in all of the California Courts. At some point during 2020, the San Mateo Court shifted from master calendar to direct calendar, but this case was not assigned to a direct calendar judge; according to Judge Buchwald, and despite the fact that he was a trial 10 judge, on or about June 11, 2020, the PJ requested that his honor accept the assignment of this case for all purposes. Another status conference was set for February 11th, then re-set to May 15th, and then to 12 June 19th, and then again to July 13, 2020; his honor then continued this case to another undisclosed 13 point in October of 2020. Judge Buchwald persistently failed to discharge the duty to establish a clear 14 record, which does not set forth why said status conference was re-set to February 11, 2021, and then to 15 February 23, 2021; the day before, KARNAZES made another improper, eleventh hour request for yet 16 another stay of proceedings. This brings us to the ambiguous handwritten order of February 22, 2021, 17 which evidences an element of the somewhat understandable albeit negligent case management that 18 Judge Buchwald demonstrated while improperly tasked with the full oversight of this action. 19 His honor's order states that the February 23, 2021, status conference was "mistakenly" set, and 20 said order includes a sunset date of March 5. 2021, for the stay, yet the cross-plaintiffs understood that 21 said date applied to setting another status conference, and that the stay still remained in effect. This is 22 further evidenced by the fact that neither the court nor defense counsel nor the parties took any further 23 action; all concerned were treating this entire case as having remained stayed, an understanding that 24 was augmented by the status shown in the online register of actions being maintained by the Court Clerk. 25 This case was visited by a variety of developments during the remainder of 2021, apparently including 26 the retirement of Judge Buchwald, as well as the grave illness that befell Coddington's managing partner 27 (discussed above), but it wasn't until April 5, 2022, that this case was reassigned to Judge Fineman. 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS sa AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524S43, KARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action Promptly on April 29, 2022, Perry moved ex parte for an order allowing Ms. Beletsis to review KARNAZES'onfidential medical records; the handwritten note on the order states that it "modifies" Judge Buchwald's order of June 26, 2019. The confusion was added to when the Court Clerk would not comply with Judge Fineman's order, a situation that was not subsequently resolved. On July 27, 2022, the court ordered that a case management and trial setting conference be set for August 23, 2022, which caused Perry to ask for a determination regarding the stay, in turn causing yet another wee hours voice mail message on the day of the conference; predictably, KARNAZES requested yet another of her many eleventh hour continuances. Perry appeared for the August hearing, at which the court continued case management to January 24, 2023, absent anv mention of the stav so, on November 3, 2022, Perry moved 10 to lift the stay and reopen discovery, as well as to set trial and for another order allowing Ms. Beletsis to review KARNAZES'edical records. Predictably, she applied ex parte on December 6, 2022, for yet 12 another stay, again absent service on the cross-plaintiffs, which is why they neither appeared nor sought the court's action on the multiple requests for clarificatio on the status of this case. Perry appeared but 14 the case status was not fully addressed and, instead, it remained stayed until April 30, 2023. 15 Although a more detailed discussion is presented in another section of this memorandum, two 16 relevant facts must be noted here, one that the cross-defendants fabricated yet another POS and thereby 17 perpetrated yet another fraud on the court (Pen. Code $ 528.5(a-c)) in association with the December 18 2022 ex parte application, and the other is that said application contains conflicting references. In one 19 section it is requested, "that the court continue to stay all proceedings pending recovery of Plaintiff from 20 the serious health issues she is currently experiencing," whereas another section states that KARNAZES 21 had, "been granted stays" and "needs a stay for the case in chief." This is relevant to whether she has 22 been utilizing another bad faith strategy, thus calling into question a factor associated with this motion. 23 The P J denied KARNAZES'x parte application for yet another stay on May 8, 2023, after 24 which yet another such application was denied on July 10th; the PJ also denied Perry's motion to declare 25 KARNAZES a vexatious litigant on that day. Thankfully, on October I I, 2023, such an order was made 26 sua sponte by the appellate court, whereby a pre-filing order was also imposed upon her. (The combined 27 declarations in support of this motion discuss the cross-defendants'attern of fi'aud, deceit, and bad faith 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5- YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843. KA RNAZES v. FERRY, et a!., and Related Cross-Action that gave rise to such orders being imposed upon both of the cross-plaintiffs.) On September 26, 2023, Perry re-filed the MSJ. Rather than meet the burden to defend the complaint, KARNAZES disputed service on the moving papers, absent any discussion of the 5-year statute of limitations. Although Judge Fineman's ruling favored Perry's arguments, her honor continued the MS J hearing to March 19, 2024, which is not long aller the hearing on this motion. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. There Will Be Significant Prejudice To All Concerned If This Court Finds That The Five-Year Statute Of Limitations Has Already Expired. The court, the parties, and defense counsel have exhibited varying states of confusion regarding 10 the status of this case, and the judges of the San Mateo Court have not acted to properly clarify the affect of the stays of proceedings to date. The record shows that, prior to retirement, Judge Buchwald was not 12 able to properly manage this case, and that the bench has failed to address the many stays that his honor 13 imposed - along with the other stays imposed by other judges. The defects associated with his honor's 14 conflicting orders over time serves to establish a pattern that is relevant to the determination that must 15 now be made but, in all fairnes, the San Mateo Court shares in the responsibility for the many problems 16 that arose because the PJ did not promptly assign this case to a direct calendar judge. 17 When the stay was lifted in mid-2023, Cross-Plaintiffs continued their work on the (proposed) 18 FACC but, upon realizing during October that a serious issue must be properly addressed, they promptly 19 asked Coddington, Perry, and Progressive for the help that they need; for two months, no representative 20 of said entities was able to assist. KARNAZES has been the one imposing and/or obtaining the stays, 21 and even though there are legitimate questions surrounding her related claims, she appears to want to 22 proceed competently on the complaint. These are the reasons why Judge Fineman is now being asked to 23 undertake the complicated calculations associated with ruling on this motion. Judge Buchwald's handwritten order of February 22, 2021„which is Exhibit A to the cross- plaintiffs'upporting declarations, constitutes prejudicial error because the parties will sustain and suffer 26 substantial injury if there is a determination that the 5-year statute of limitations has already expired, 27 such that a different result would be probable if that defect and related error had not occurred or existed. 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIVS24843, JCAIIIVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action (Code Civ. Proc. $$ 475 and 583.310.) "A judgment may not be reversed on appeal, ... unless 'after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,'t appears the error caused a 'miscarriage of justice.'Cal. Const., art. VI, 5 13) When the error is one of state law only, it generally does not warrant reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached. (citations omitted) However, where the error results in denial of a fair hearing, the error is reversible per se. (citations omitted)" (Kelly v. New g est Federal Savings (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 677.) This case has lingered on the court's dockets for 10 years, during which time KARNAZES has engaged in highly suspect and elaborate efforts to impede the proceedings, aided by the fraudulent and fabricated POS that are persistent elements of the cross-defendants'attern of misconduct, which are 10 also elements of KARNAZES'fforts to invoke plausible denial. The delays that have plagued this litigation ever since defense counsel became involved have also persisted, amidst (likely premeditated) 12 activity that has resulted in KARNAZES being given the benefit of every doubt that has arisen. A ruling on tins motion that results in the termination of this entire action will only give rise to more litigation, so 14 this Court should find that Judge Buchwald's order does not govern the above calculation, which must 15 be made for the purpose of determining the current status of the diferent statutory deadlines that apply 16 to the complaint and to the cross-complaint. 17 Regardless of the manner in which the conduct of this entire action has been handled (leaving various court officers appearing gullible, recalcitrant, or incompetent), the status of the 5-year statute of 19 limitations must be assessed and corrective action must be taken on the error associated with (ret.) Judge 20 Buchwald's order of February 21, 2021. Cross-Plaintiffs are at a loss as to how to calculate the statutory 21 deadlines, and neither counsel nor KARNAZES have proven to be of any assistance, so the parties must 22 rely on the learned jurisprudence of Judge Fineman, who should grant this motion in association with finding that the alleged sunset date of March 5, 2021, given in his honor's order does not govern. 24 B. This Case Now Requires A Proper Interpretation Of Vexatious Litigant Law. 25 On January 8, 2024, judicial staff refused to allow Cross-Plaintiffs access to the P J's department 26 in order to address the legal issues intertwined in this motion. Among the purposes of vexatious litigant 27 law is to avoid an endless roundelay of &ivolous litigation, so the related interests of brevity allow this 26 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS St AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, er al., and Related Cross-Action motion to now be brought directly before Judge Fineman, who is authorized to act in the place and stead of the PJ under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(e). As shown by the supporting declarations, the PJ did not know that related matters required attention because judicial staff acted on authority that does not rest with them, and then merely relayed information through that department' bailiff. "The presiding justice or presiding judge of a court may designate a justice or judge of the same court to act on his or her behalf in exercising the authorities and responsibilities provided under subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive." (Code Civ. Proc. (j 391.7(e).) Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (a), sets forth the definition of "Litigation," as "any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court," and 10 Subdivision (c) specifically includes "maintained or caused to be maintained" in provisions related to how vexafious litigants may proceed. Section 391.7, Subdivision (d), discusses "litigation," as being 12 "any petition, application, or motion ... for any order," and makes reference to the Family and Probate 13 Codes in providing an exception related to a discovery motion. The California Rules of Court, at Rule 14 L6(1-2), includes in the definition of "action" a "special proceeding," and defines a "case" by including 15 "action or proceeding." Further, Section 391.7, Subdivision (c), states that, "litigation" shall be stayed if leave to proceed is not obtained fiom the P J, while Subdivisions (a-b) discuss the fact that such parties 17 risk contempt findings if they don't get such permission, and if the P J finds that "the litigation has (no) 18 merit," or that it has "been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay." 19 When a pre-filing order is in place, the determination of a P J is required as to whether there is an 20 improper purpose associated with a proceeding before it can go forward before a given judge in a given 21 court, There are many different types of proceedings that go forward in the courts, and the Legislature 22 has given the above list of definitions with the intention that the same should govern the scope of such activity, and to provide guidance to jurists, court officers, and self-represented parties so affected. There 24 is plain language in these established definitions - cases, actions, special proceedings, petitions, motions, and applications for orders - and exceptions are carved out for discovery motions in both the Family and 26 Probate Courts; said language also makes reference to any proceeding that is "pending in any state or federal court." An unfiled case can neither be nendina nor maintained. and no motion or annlication can 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS 8r. AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, ICARNAZES v. FERRY, er aI, and Related Cross-Action be made in an unfiled case: further. a case that has been filed must be maintained bv wav of litigating various tvnes of nroceedinus. a few of which miuht be netitions for certain orders. Given the spirit of vexatious litigant law and the requirement that literal meaning is to be given to unambiguous language intended to be in harmony with the purpose of the law, a fair reading that comports with the legislative intent demonstrates that the judicial officers in the p J's department gave incorrect instruction to the cross-plaintiffs on January 8, 2024. As an alternative to imposing burdens on the P J every time either JOHN, KIRSTEN, or KARNAZES seeks to move this Court, the PJ is allowed to designate the assigned judge as the oversight authority in relation to said parties'ro per litigation going forward, thereby (hopefully) insuring that the proceedings will not be attended by Iiivolity. 10 There can be no improper purpose in determining the status of the five-year statute of limitations because all concerned have overlooked a prior order that could serve to curtail any further proceedings. 12 In association with ruling on this motion, and given that judicial staff refused to allow Cross-Plaintiffs access to the P J's department, Judge Fineman can exercise appropriate judicial discretion by consulting 14 with the P J so that related direction can be provided to these pro Jrer parties for future reference. 15 C. The Conduct Of The Proceedings Going Forward Will Benefit From An Order That The Parties And Counsel Must Establish Electronic Service Agreements. 16 17 The record does not show if Judge Fineman was influenced by the carefully structured lies that 18 KARNAZES told in relation to KIRSTEN'S ex parte application, which present yet another example of 19 the established patterns and practices that continue to define KARNAZES'ad faith litigation strategy. 20 Her uncured noticing violations and efforts to perpetrate Iraud upon the court have been aggravating 21 factors throughout these parties'nteractions. Cross-Plaintiffs'upporting declarations discuss the true 22 facts in greater detail. Even before JOHN hired KARNAZES in 2010, her suspect mental health claims were giving rise to her suspect delay tactics (an issue that contributed to the 2012 recommendation for 24 her disbarment), however, after her psychiatrist disobeyed a duly served subpoena in 2015, said claims 25 were replaced by the equally suspect physical health claims that have since plagued her cases. 26 Judge Fineman should examine the need to make an order that the parties and counsel enter in to 27 mutual electronic service agreements, an order that should be made irrespective of objections because 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARiVAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action such an order would serve to resolve some of the issues being discussed herein. The one-sided benefits that KARNAZES has derived from her fraudulent POS and related strategies have subjected the cross- plaintiffs to undue prejudice throughout the course of the proceedings, and the order being requested should serve to curtail these violations. (Case specific email addresses for KARNAZES and Cross- Plaintiffs are simple measures that can be undertaken free of charge and could be included in the order.) Among the true facts is that KARNAZES has established numerous highly suspect patterns and practices, all of which have aided her in avoiding liability and the merits of any and all related claims, whether made by her or by her opposing parties or by opposing counsel. The public record in this and other cases evidences that said patterns have been demonstrated for at least 15 years in every court where 10 she has operated, along with the pattern of extensive delay that has plagued every such action, and that her strategies have been designed to enable her improper purposes, one of which is to grant herself 12 unfettered latitude to engage in the conduct complained of against her, not only by the cross-plaintiffs but also by others. This misconduct is often accompanied by KARNAZES'ack-dated documents and the suspect POS that have enabled her to operate in the courts where this activity has been occurring, 15 giving rise to many opposing parties'equests for findings, supported by arguments that include, but are not limited to, defective service of nrocess and violation of numerous statutes of limitations. The record in the cases to which she has been a party also shows that she has a pattern of claiming defective service 18 on virtually every occasion involving litigation that requires her to meet a deadline and be accountable 19 for some sort of development that either goes to the weight of her case or her credibility. 20 The following is also noteworthy. For approximately two years, KARNAZES has been filing 21 documents electronically in all of the courts affected by her vexatious litigation and associated tactics, 22 yet as it pertains to this case, she refuses to establish any electronic service agreement while demanding 23 that defense counsel accept electronic service. She has demanded that opposing counsel and parties 24 shoulder the unnecessary burden and expense of serving her with paper documents, however, during a 25 hearing in December of 2023 on two other cases that involve all three named parties, she complained to 26 the PJ about the volume of documents that Cross-Plaintiffs have been required to serve on her as a result 27 of her self-serving strategy. KARNAZES'efusal to implement a mutual electronic service agreement 28 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARVAZES v. FERRY, ei al., and Related Cross-Action 12 has enabled both her noticing violations and her frivolous claims regarding a non-existent pattern on the part of opposing counsel and parties, and this Court must now take long overdue corrective action. KARNAZES'ersistent pattern of fabricating evidence and justifying her noticing violations are a matter of record, as is the fact that the cross-defendants made no effort to serve the comnlaint for an entire vear after it was filed, for which leave of court was not sought. (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.110.) Further, her highly suspect illness/injury claims weren't made until after the DA dismissed the criminal case that would have insured the cross-defendants'bility to prevail on the sham complaint in this case. Three facts are additionally noteworihy. One is the egregious pattern evidenced by the San Francisco Court record, which shows that KARNAZES has been using her known alias, "Betsy Barnson," in order 10 to target some of the deep pockets that have comprised at least balf of the list of her opposing parties over many years'ime. (Pen. Code tj YJ 158-159.) Another is that KARNAZES has repeatedly invoked 12 plausible denial in order to avoid the fact that she has reneatedlv nublished the cross-nlaintiffs'ersonal 13 identifvinn information. which she has nrovided to counsel on behalf of other cross-defendants, (Pen. 14 Code tj ) 528.5(a-c) and 530.5(a), (c)(l), and (d)(l).) The third is evidenced by the combined, supporting 15 declarations to this motion, in that KIRSTEN has been the target for the ire of some cross-defendants 16 over the years, and particularly that of KARNAZES, and those cross-defendants know that her excited, spontaneous, relevant, and admissible utterance is captured on police body camera footage. 16 KARNAZES is clearly capable of implementing the procedures associated with her use of the 19 electronic filing service(s) that she has been utilizing for approximately two years. This Court should be 20 able to recognize that none of her dubious claims regarding service would be a factor if the safeguards 21 associated with electronic service were in operation. KARNAZES refusal to establish such service * 22 agreements serves to avoid solid evidence, not only of her noticing violations but also of her false claims against these opposing parties and defense counsel and the true fact that would serve to weigh against 24 her credibility. As discussed in the next section, this entire case turns on the fact that she and other 25 cross-defendants have not been telling the truth to numerous judges and justices in numerous courts. 26 Judge Fineman has the discretion to order the parties and counsel to establish mutual electronic service 27 agreements, and her honor should do so in association with ruling on this motion, 26 CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS k AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524S43, KIRYAZES v. FERRY, er ai., and Related Cross-Action 13 1 D. A Sinister Possibility Lurks Beneath The Cross-Defendants'attern Of Misconduct. 2 This is not the forum for a discussion of the issues presented by Cross-Plaintiffs'mpending 3 motion for leave to file the (proposed) FACC, but the matters intertwined in the need to rule on this 4 motion merit brief consideration because some of the cross-defendants have established a pattern that 5 directly affects the San Mateo Court. KARNAZES is not the only one who shifts responsibility for 6 misconduct that constitutes a pattern of fraud on the court, which has infected the proceedings in fom' other jurisdictions and contemplates invited error, thus exposing six courts to miscarriage of justice. 8 "'The doctrine of invited error ... rests on the purpose of the principle, which is to prevent a party 9 from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court." (Munoz v. City of 10 Union City (2007) 148 Cal.4th 173, 178.) 11 There is a possibility that the cross-defendants have engineered the scenario contemplated by this 12 motion. A sinister aspect of their pattern involves their efforts to shift liability to unsuspecting attorneys 13 who have been hired in one setting or another over time by the individuals who are or will be parties to 14 the cross-action, if and when the (proposed) FACC is filed and fictitious does are named. If the order in 15 question is allowed to govern the calculation of the time lines affecting both the complaint and the cross- 16 complaint, then this entire action will be terminated, which would free all of the cross-defendants Irom 17 liability, reward KARNAZES for having successfully delayed this case (on behalf of herself and those 18 with whom she has likely conspired over an extended period of time), and expose Progressive and/or 19 Coddington and/or Perry to liability for not addressing the order in question three years ago. 20 The cross-defendants'attern is not confined solely to the misconduct in this case, one being the 21 pattern of causing frivolous delays. KARNAZES'uccess at doing so might affect the proceedings on 22 the pending defense MS J, which would not have factored in to the MS J filed by Coddington, Ostensibly 23 (to date), she has avoided her duty to present her defense to both MSJ, but the defense to the cross-action 24 is not solely confined to her - a conspiracy is alleged, and other matters have played out during the time 25 that this case has been pending, all of which has served to provide relevant and admissible evidence that 26 goes to the existence of that conspiracy. Had the cross-plaintiffs not raised the issues presented by this 27 motion before the hearing on the pending MSJ, the cross-defendants'attern and practice of fraud on the CROSS-PLAINTIFFS'EMORANDUM OF POINTS tF. AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE 5-YR. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CASE NO. CIV524843, KARNAZES v. FERRY, et al., and Related Cross-Action