Madhok

DISCUSSION

Madhok argues the trial court erroneously granted Fidelity judgment on the pleadings because he timely filed his complaint.2 We disagree.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 The notice of appeal filed by Madhok only appeals from an “order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1 (a)(2)” (italics added)— presumably the denial of his “motion to set aside the Dismissal”—and did not appear to appeal from the judgment. Although appeals are “ ‘ “limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from” ’ ” (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 75), it is reasonably clear that Madhok was trying to challenge the merits of the judgment (In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272 [construing notices of appeal liberally “ ‘to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to

I. Standard of Review and Legal Background

We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings—a motion that tests the allegations of a complaint, “ ‘supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff .…