PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al.

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Patricia Lopez’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction is ruled upon as follows.

The Court considered Plaintiff’s opposition which was filed one Court day late. Defendant was able to file a substantive reply.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges causes of action against numerous defendants for intentional interference with economic relationship, trade libel, slander, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and fraud. Plaintiff, who formerly operated a construction company, alleges that the various defendants engaged in a scheme to harm his reputation and business operations. He alleges that after he filed a mechanic’s lien in connection with work he performed for Mike Baddley, defendant Amy Lopez began contacting Plaintiff’s clients and subcontractors and making false statements. (Comp. ¶ 29.)

Defendant Lopez allegedly posted on Facebook that Plaintiff was bribing the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bugayong spread false statements that Plaintiff was not paying contractors and was insolvent. (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff alleges that Schaal left a voicemail for one of his clients falsely stating that Plaintiff “targeted minorities and churches”, had “over 70 victims” and was being “criminally investigated.” (Id. ¶¶ 5, 35.) Plaintiff alleges that Schaal, Lopez and Bugayoung recruited Plaintiff’s former clients and subcontractors to file complaint against Plaintiff with the CSLB. (Id. ¶ 39.)

Plaintiff performed work for Schaal and Trujillo and the work was the subject of a civil lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 35.)

The only specific allegations in the complaint against Defendant Patricia Lopez are that she is a resident of Oregon and that she “contacted Mrs. Noord to arrange a conference call with Ellen Trujillo (Defendant LYNDA TRUJILLO’s mother) to coordinate and explain their motives and efforts to disrupt Plaintiff’s business.” (Comp. ¶¶ 17, 33.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Viola Lavasz attended a meeting in November 2023 where she stated that “she had been assisting all the defendants with all of their activities, including that A. Lopez and P. Lopez were coordinating with other of the Plaintiff’s family members and the Plaintiff’s customers and further A Lopez described that Plaintiff ‘had destabilized Schaal and Trujillo home’.” (Id. ¶ 30 [emphasis in original].) Defendant is Amy Lopez’s mother.

Defendant, who is 82 and suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, has lived in Medford,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

Oregon for the past six and a half years. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) Defendant has made infrequent visits to California to see her brother in a Placerville skilled nursing center. The last such visit occurred in January 2025. (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant indicates that she has not spoken to Plaintiff for over four years. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant moves to quash service of summons pursuant to CCP § 418.10 on the basis that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction due to an absence of minimum contacts.

A California Court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is constitutional “if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the state that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (West Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App. 4th 1167, 1171-72 [quoting Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444].)

“[W]hen jurisdiction is challenged by a non-resident defendant, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that ‘minimum contacts’ exist between defendants and the forum state to justify imposition of personal jurisdiction.” (Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) 'Minimum Contacts' means the relationship between the nonresident and the forum state is such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice' under the U.S.

Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) Jurisdictional facts must be proven by competent evidence and an unverified pleading has no value. (Id.) “The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts; the plaintiff must provide affidavits or other authenticated documents demonstrating competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.” (BBA Aviation PLC v. Superior Court (2013) 190 Cal.App.4th 421, 428-429.) “Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Case I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)

A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum state if his or her contacts are “substantial, continuous and systematic.” (Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 446-447; see Vons v Seabest Food Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446, 452.) In such circumstances, a non-resident can be sued in the forum state even where the lawsuit is not based on his or her forum related activities. As the Supreme Court recognized in one case finding contacts insufficient, a defendant was a Florida resident and there is no evidence presented to show his “affiliations with [California] are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home” in California. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 134 S.Ct. 746, 761.)

“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of [the] defendant’s contacts with the forum; and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

(3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” (Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 269 [citations omitted].) The fact that the party has no physical contacts with the California does not defeat jurisdiction where the party commits out-of-state acts intended to cause effects in California, reasonably would cause effects in California, or are “purposefully directed’ toward California residents. (Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 909.) “[W]here a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476-477.)

“’The purposeful availment inquiry focuses on the defendant’s intentionality. [citation.] This prong is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction based on’ his contacts with the forum.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 269.) “[P]urposeful availment occurs where a nonresident defendant purposefully directs [his or her] activities at residents of the forum, purposefully derives benefit from [his or her] activities in the forum, creates a substantial connection with the forum, or has created continuing obligations between [himself or herself] and residents of the forum.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1168.) “First, the relationship must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself creates with the forum State.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122 [emphasis in original].) “Second, our ‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” (Id.) The “mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.” (Id. at 1125.)

In reviewing an order granting a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, an appellate court must view the facts most favorably to the moving defendant. (Farris v. Capt.J.B. Fronapfel Co. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 982, 987.)

In opposition, Plaintiff does not argue that Defendant is subject to general jurisdiction. Rather, he argues that Defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiff relies upon the “effects” test articulated by the United State Supreme Court in a libel action. (Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783.) In Calder, the Supreme Court determined that California courts could exercise jurisdiction over an editor and a reporter who caused a defamatory article about a California resident to be published in Florida and circulated in California, on the ground that the tortious conduct was 'expressly aimed' at the forum state in which harm occurred. (Id. at 788-789.) “As noted by the California Supreme Court in discussing Calder, “most courts agree that merely asserting that a defendant knew or should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the effects test.” (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 270-271.) “Indeed, virtually every jurisdiction has

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

held that the Calder effects test requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state in addition to the defendant’s knowledge that his intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Id. at 271.) The California Supreme Court has thus made clear that in addition to showing that a non-resident defendant knew he or she would cause harm in a forum state, there must be “additional evidence of express aiming or intentional targeting [of the forum state].” (Id.) Under the ‘effects’ test for determining purposeful availment, a defendant might be subject to jurisdiction in the forum state if the defendant engaged in intentional conduct ‘expressly aimed at or targeting the forum state,’ and the defendant knew the intentional conduct would cause harm in the forum.” (Archdiocese of Milwaukee v.

Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 423, 436 [citing Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 271 [emphasis in original].)

Plaintiff relies upon declarations from Linda Noord and James Noord. Linda Noord is his sister and James Noord is married to Linda Noord. Linda Noord’s declaration recounts communications with Amy Lopez regarding Plaintiff’s business. (L. Noord Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.) The only mention of Defendant in Linda Noord’s declaration is a statement that Defendant called her and told her that “she wanted to arrange a conference call that was to include Ellen Trujillo.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Defendant “stated that the purpose of the call was to discuss my brother’s construction business with Ellen Trujillo and that she wanted me to support their efforts against my brother.” (Id.)

Linda Noord also recounted a statement from defendant Lavasz who “stated that she had been involved in helping Amy and my aunt Patricia Lopez in their efforts against my brother.” (Id. ¶ 11.) Linda Noord executed her declaration in Illinois. James Noord’s declaration simply states that he has knowledge of a phone call his wife received from Defendant. (J. Noord Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s declaration states that Linda Noord informed him of the phone call he received from Defendant. (Perez Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff’s showing fails to demonstrate any minimum contacts between Defendant and the forum state under any test, much less the “effect” test. First, as set forth above, Plaintiff was required to demonstrate the jurisdictional facts with “competent evidence.” (BBA Aviation PLC, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at 428-429.) Linda Noord’s declaration discussing what defendant Amy Lopez told her are inadmissible hearsay to the extent such portion is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and without any apparent hearsay exception.

The same is true with the portion of the declaration discussing what defendant Lavasz told her. Nor do these statements appear to carry any non-hearsay purpose that would be relevant to establish jurisdiction regarding the Defendant at issue in this motion. Also, the portion of Linda Noord’s declaration regarding Defendant asking her to participate in a conference call “to discuss my brother’s construction business with Ellen Trujillo and that she wanted me to support their efforts against my brother” falls far short from demonstrating the requisite minimum contacts.

First, Linda Noord executed the declaration in Illinois and thus it appears that Defendant placed a phone call in Oregon to Linda Noord in Illinois asking her to participate in a “conference

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

call”. Absent specific evidence to the contrary, this call was not directed to California. Further, there is no evidence that any “conference call” took place in any event. Moreover, even if there had been some “conference call” to discuss Plaintiff, there is no evidence regarding what Defendant said during such call, and certainly no evidence that Defendant engaged in any intentional conduct expressly aimed at or targeting California coupled with Defendant’s knowledge that this conduct would cause harm in California. (Pavlovich, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 270-271.) “The mere fact that a plaintiff is a California resident does not mean that a tortious act committed against him by a defendant outside the state had an “effect” in California.” (Farris, supra, 182 Cal.App.3d at 989- 990.)

Plaintiff also argues that “the default of co-conspirator Viola Lavasz constitutes a judicial admission of the allegations in the Complaint, including her confession that Defendant P. Lopez and Amy Lopez were actively coordinating efforts against Plaintiff in California.” (Opp. 6:14-17.) A defendant in default “admits the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint.” (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153.) While defendant Lavasz’s default has been entered and she has admitted the allegations of the complaint, Defendant is not in default and she has not admitted any allegations of the complaint. Any admission that resulted from defendant Lavasz’s default has no effect on Defendant.

Plaintiff also appears to argue that Defendant’s counsel admitted that Defendant engaged in the conduct set forth in the complaint. However, Defendant’s counsel simply quoted the allegations in the complaint in a letter to Plaintiff discussing why counsel believed that Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction. Specifically, counsel stated that “even assuming” the allegations in the complaint were true, those allegations could not support personal jurisdiction. (Perez Decl. Exh. A.) Defendant’s counsel did not admit to the conduct in the complaint.

Despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, he has presented no facts to demonstrate that Defendant purposefully availed herself of California benefits. At most, he is simply alleging and arguing that Defendant was a part of the subject conspiracy with her daughter Amy Lopez. That is insufficient. Allegations of a conspiracy with a local defendant are not sufficient as a basis for jurisdiction over nonresidents as “[p]ersonal jurisdiction must be based on forum-related acts that were personally committed by each nonresident defendant. The purposes and acts of one party—even an alleged co-conspirator—cannot be imputed to a third party to establish jurisdiction over the third party defendant.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Case I & II, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [emphasis added].)

Plaintiff alternatively requests the Court should allow him to conduct jurisdictional discovery on Defendant, if it believes he has not met his burden on this motion. “A trial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 02/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 53

court has the discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173.) “In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.)

A decision to permit a continuance for discovery is entirely within the trial court’s discretion and an appellate court “will not reverse the trial court's ruling unless we find a manifest abuse of that discretion.” (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (2023) 87 Cal. App. 5th 964, 972.) Here, Plaintiff simply argues that the “discovery would be tailored to uncovering facts related to jurisdiction, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents (such as phone and email records between her and other defendants), and the deposition of Defendant P.

Lopez.” (Opp. 8:25-28.) This vague request has been found insufficient to support a continuance. (Preciado, supra, 87 Cal. App. 5th at 972-973.) The instant motion was filed and served on September 25, 2025, and Plaintiff’s opposition was filed 141 days later on February 13, 2026. Plaintiff had almost five months to conduct jurisdictional discovery since the time the motion was filed but failed to do so. Further, other than simply referring to certain discovery tools, Plaintiff has failed to describe what specific discovery he seeks to propound and/or what that discovery would uncover. “Because Plaintiffs failed to articulate what specific facts they would seek to develop if granted a continuance, the trial court could reasonably conclude that Plaintiffs did not ‘demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.’” (Id. at 973 [citations omitted].” Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is denied.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that Defendant purposefully directed her conduct at California with knowledge that her conduct would cause harm in California and thus failed to meet the first requirement for specific jurisdiction.

Given the above, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.

As the Court is granting the motion to quash pursuant to CCP § 418.10, Defendant is also entitled to an order dismissing the complaint “without prejudice” as to Defendant only, pursuant to CCP § 581(h). Defendant may submit a proposed order to such effect.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required other than that addressed above.