PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al.

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 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. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Defendant Amy Lopez’s motion for terminating sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128(a)(4) is denied.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, subd. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

In this action, self-represented Plaintiff Joseph Perez 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 began contacting his clients and subcontractors and making false statements.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128(a)(4) on the basis that Plaintiff attached an unsent email addressed to Defendant in an opposition to Defendant Jane Deacon’s special motion to strike. Defendant argues that Plaintiff attempted to create a false impression that he had actually contacted Defendant regarding harm that he had suffered. Defendant then asserts that Plaintiff submitted a declaration in a related probate case (Case No. 24PR000359) which attached a different version of the same draft email. Defendant argues that draft email dated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

February 6, 2026 in the probate case contains language discussing how Defendant was currently upsetting Plaintiff’s mother even though she had passed away years earlier. Based on what she contends are two materially different versions of the same email, Plaintiff has deliberately committed a fraud on the Court such that terminating sanctions are appropriate.

As noted, Defendant seeks terminating sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128(a)(4). That section provides that Courts have the power “[t]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.” (CCP § 128(a)(4).) “Courts have the inherent authority to dismiss a case as a sanction. But dismissal is always a drastic remedy to be employed only in the rarest of circumstances. There are two important inquiries to be made by trial courts when determining whether a plaintiff's actions warrant a dismissal with prejudice.

First, the court must discern whether the plaintiff's pattern of conduct was so severe [and] deliberate as to constitute extreme circumstances. Second, the court must look to see whether alternatives less severe than dismissal are available. The sound exercise of discretion requires the judge to consider and use lesser sanctions unless the court’s authority cannot possibly be otherwise vindicated.” (Guardianship of A.H. (2022) 83 Cal. App. 5th 155, 161 [citations omitted] [emphasis added].)

While Defendant believes that Plaintiff’s conduct is submitting two different versions of a draft email in two separate cases constitutes a fraud on the Court, this is not a scenario which would warrant the drastic remedy of a terminating sanction. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges that both emails were labeled as unsent drafts. As seen from Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff never represented that the draft emails were sent and the emails were clearly labeled “draft.” Defendant concedes that she never received the emails which is consistent with the conclusion that the emails were not sent to Defendant.

To the extent there is some dispute with respect to the different versions of the draft emails and/or that certain inferences or conclusions should be drawn by a trier of fact based upon the inconsistencies of such drafts, such a dispute appears to be a factual one which may be appropriately addressed in discovery, at trial and/or through an appropriate motion if there is one to be made pretrial. Indeed, Defendant’s moving papers are not clear regarding the exact dispute that is raised with respect to the emails and the factual significance thereof, but regardless of that dispute, this is not a situation where terminating sanctions (or any of the alternative sanctions sought by Defendant) would be appropriate.

The motion is denied in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 is also denied. The Court notes that in the limited instances where it is appropriate, CCP § 128.7 requires a separate motion for relief under such section. (CCP § 128.7(c)(1).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

In addition, the Court will not, as Plaintiff requests, order Defendant to answer the first amended complaint as Plaintiff’s opposition does not constitute an affirmative motion and no such motion exists in any event.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.