NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

YOCHANAN CHRISTAKIS, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

YOSEPH GOODMAN, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0174

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2019-004364

The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Yochanan Christakis, Mesa

Plaintiff/Appellant

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix

By Josh M. Snell, Petra L. Emerson

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Yoseph and Shulamit Goodman

Emord & Associates, P.C., Gilbert

By Peter A. Arhangelsky, Eric J. Awerbuch

Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Uri and Albina Sukhodolsky

FILED 2-2-2021
CHRISTAKIS v. GOODMAN, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Yochanan Christakis appeals the superior court’s order 

granting summary judgment to Uri Sukhodolsky, Albina Sukhodolsky, 

Yoseph Goodman, and Shulamit Goodman (collectively, “Defendants”)

based on the expiration of the statute of limitations on his defamation 

claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On March 28, 2019, Christakis filed the subject lawsuit for 

defamation based on statements allegedly made via speech, emails, text 

messages, and WhatsApp messages beginning in November or December 

2017. Christakis alleged he discovered publication of the statements on or 

about April 3, 2018.

¶3 Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the 

claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-541(1). Christakis filed an 

amended complaint in which he reasserted claims based on 

communications made beginning on December 21, 2017, again 

emphasizing that he did not discover the specific statements until April 3, 

2018. In his response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

Christakis argued the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until 

he discovered the specific statements on April 3, 2018, during the pendency 

of a defamation lawsuit he had filed in 2017 against Jason Bedrick and 

fictitious defendants, Christakis v. Bedrick, et al., CV2017-008056 (“the Bedrick

case”).

1

¶4 At oral argument on the motion for summary judgment, 

Christakis specified as the basis of his claims against Defendants a string of 

WhatsApp messages allegedly sent on December 21, 2017, but not 

1 Pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal, the superior court 

dismissed the Bedrick case on September 23, 2018.
CHRISTAKIS v. GOODMAN, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

discovered by Christakis until April 3, 2018, during discovery in the Bedrick

case. The superior court took judicial notice of the filings in the Bedrick case 

and questioned Christakis about these WhatsApp messages and the 

allegations he made in that litigation.

¶5 Specifically, the court noted that on February 14, 2018,

Christakis alleged in an amended complaint in the Bedrick case that, “[u]pon 

information and belief, . . . Bedrick and other unknown Defendants began”

making defamatory statements about him in late 2017 “via mass emails,

mass text messages and mass WhatsApp messages.” The court found that,

based on Christakis’ filings in the Bedrick case, his claims relating to the 

allegedly defamatory communications made by unknown persons accrued 

no later than February 14, 2018. Because Christakis filed the subject lawsuit 

on March 28, 2019, the court found these claims barred by the one-year 

statute of limitations. See A.R.S. § 12-541(1). The court granted Defendants’

motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment on all claims

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(c). Christakis 

moved for a new trial, which the court summarily denied.

¶6 We have jurisdiction over Christakis’ timely appeal pursuant 

to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) and (A)(5)(a).

ANALYSIS

¶7 We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, “viewing 

the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable” to 

Christakis, against whom summary judgment was taken. See BMO Harris 

Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC, 236 Ariz. 363, 365, ¶ 7 (2015). We 

will affirm a grant of summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Rule 56(a); see also Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 305 (1990).

¶8 On appeal, Christakis argues the superior court should have 

determined that the alleged defamatory statements were published in a 

secretive manner in the private, members-only WhatsApp group chat and 

that the discovery rule applied to toll the statute of limitations. On this 

record, we disagree.

¶9 The one-year statute of limitations for defamation begins to 

accrue on publication. A.R.S. § 12-541(1); Lim v. Superior Court, 126 Ariz. 

481, 482 (App. 1980); Clark v. Airesearch Mfg. Co. of Ariz., Inc., 138 Ariz. 240, 

241 (App. 1983); Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., 168 Ariz. 207, 213 

(App. 1990). The discovery rule applies to toll the statute of limitations in 

the limited circumstance in which the alleged defamatory statement is 
CHRISTAKIS v. GOODMAN, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

“peculiarly likely to be concealed from the plaintiff” or “published in a 

particularly secretive manner which would make [it] unlikely to come to 

the attention of the injured party,” such as in a credit report or a confidential 

business memorandum. Clark, 138 Ariz. at 242-43. “The plaintiff has the 

burden of establishing that the discovery rule should apply to delay the 

statute of limitations.” Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health All., 232 Ariz. 588, 591, 

¶ 9 (App. 2013).

¶10 Here, rather than explicitly making a finding that publication 

on WhatsApp was not secret or concealed and that the discovery rule did 

not apply, the superior court focused its inquiry on when Christakis 

knew—or had a good faith belief formed after an inquiry to satisfy Rule 

11—that his defamation claims existed. The court specifically noted:

[I]t is unnecessary for this Court to decide on what date 

Plaintiff’s claims accrued between December 21, 2017 (the 

date of publication) and February 14, 2018 (the date Plaintiff 

made these statements in [the Bedrick case]). Because both 

dates are more than one year before Plaintiff initiated this 

case, the precise date in this range is immaterial to this 

decision.

The superior court did not err by declining to specifically find that the 

statements were published in a secretive manner or determine precisely

when the statute of limitations began to accrue. As evidenced by 

Christakis’ filings in the Bedrick case and concessions made at oral argument 

in the summary judgment hearing, the record supports the court’s explicit 

finding that Christakis knew in February 2018 that allegedly defamatory 

statements were made about him in late 2017 on WhatsApp by unknown 

individuals.

¶11 Christakis argues that the allegations he made in the Bedrick

case did not refer to the specific December 2017 statements made by 

Defendants, that the superior court failed to “liberally construe” his Bedrick

case allegations, and that there is a genuine factual dispute about when he 

actually discovered the specific statements made by these particular 

Defendants. We find these arguments unavailing. The statute of 

limitations is not tolled in a defamation action when the plaintiff learns that 

negative things are being said about him but cannot learn the identity of the 

alleged defamer. See Lim, 126 Ariz. at 482-83 (finding the statute of 

limitations was not tolled when the plaintiff could not identify the authors 

of an anonymous, allegedly defamatory letter); Clark, 138 Ariz. at 242-43

(declining to apply the discovery rule when the plaintiff was led to believe 
CHRISTAKIS v. GOODMAN, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

negative things were being said about him before the expiration of the 

statute of limitations but did not see the negative comments in writing until 

reading a deposition transcript during the pendency of a related lawsuit).

¶12 When a plaintiff knows about an allegedly defamatory

statement but does not know the identity of the alleged defamer, a 

“complaint naming fictitious defendants” should be filed, and a 

“subsequent amendment to name the alleged defamers once their identity 

[is] determined” should follow. Lim, 126 Ariz. at 483. Here, during the 

pendency of the Bedrick case, Christakis learned of negative comments 

being made about him on WhatsApp by unknown individuals in late 2017. 

While he claims he did not know the specific identity of the alleged 

defamers, or the exact date when the statements were made, he affirmed to 

the superior court that he knew statements had been made and that the 

statements were defamatory. In light of these uncontested facts, the proper 

procedure was to amend the existing Bedrick complaint, not dismiss that 

lawsuit and file a new one after the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

See id.

¶13 Because Christakis’ defamation claims against Defendants 

accrued at the latest by February 14, 2018, the superior court properly 

granted summary judgment to Defendants.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

ruling. In our discretion, we decline Defendants’ request to award 

attorneys’ fees as sanctions. We award Defendants their taxable costs upon 

compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.