PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al.

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant Bugayoung Answers 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

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant Bugayoung Answers in Department 16D

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with 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 Plaintiff Joseph Perez’s unopposed motion to strike self-represented Defendant Ralph Bugayong’s verified first amended answer (“VFAA”) is denied.

In this action, 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 now moves to strike Defendant’s VFAA on numerous grounds.

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and the Court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (See Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,' or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) Examples of 'improper' matters include allegations which are 'at variance with the contract.' (California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar (1914) 167 Cal. 274, 279.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 436.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant Bugayoung Answers in Department 16D

may take judicial notice. (CCP § 437(a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural 'line item veto'. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

Plaintiff first argues that the VFAA is subject to being stricken because it was untimely filed. Plaintiff is wrong. Defendant initially filed an answer on April 22, 2026. As conceded by Plaintiff that was the deadline to file the answer. Thus, the answer was timely filed. Defendant then filed the VFAA on April 27, 2026. Defendant was permitted to file an amended answer without leave of Court pursuant to CCP § 472(a) given that no demurrer or motion to strike had been filed with respect to the answer filed on April 22, 2026. In addition, while Plaintiff appears to request that the Court strike the answer filed on April 22, 2026, that answer has been superseded by the VFAA and cannot now be stricken. “[A]n amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.)

Plaintiff next contends that the VFAA is subject to a motion to strike because it is not verified. Because the complaint was verified, Defendant may not respond with an unverified answer. (CCP §§ 431.30(d)-(f), 446(a).) Pleadings required to be verified in accordance with CCP § 446 are subject to a motion to strike when not verified. (E.g., DeCamp v. First Kensington Corp. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 268, 283.) However, while Plaintiff argues that the VFAA’s verification page is unsigned, the VFAA filed with the Court on April 27, 2026, contains Defendant’s signature. Defendant properly verified the VFAA under penalty of perjury. The motion to strike on the basis that the VFAA is not verified is denied.

Plaintiff then contends that there was no proof of service filed with the VFAA. This is no basis for a motion to strike as it has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the pleading itself. Notably, Plaintiff then concedes that a proof of service was executed for the VFAA but claims that it was served by a person who is not a party to the action or authorized by Defendant to serve documents. Again, this is no basis to strike the VFAA. The same holds true with respect to the claim that Defendant failed to serve the VFAA on all parties to the action.

Plaintiff also contends that the VFAA is a sham pleading containing perjury. However, Plaintiff’s claim is premised on an assertion that “police records” (or in other words, extrinsic evidence) can confirm the falsity of the statements. Extrinsic evidence is not permitted on a motion to strike. Again, as mentioned above, a motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 437(a).)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 128.5 and 128.7 is denied. A motion for sanctions under CCP § 128.5 “shall be made separately from other motions or requests” and a motion under CCP § 128.7 “shall be made separately from other motions or requests.” (CCP §§ 128.5 (f)(1)(A); 128.7(c)(1).) Plaintiff improperly sought sanctions under these sections in a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant Bugayoung Answers in Department 16D

motion to strike. The request is denied on this basis alone.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court refer Defendant to the District Attorney for perjury is denied. Plaintiff cites no authority for such a request and in any event is premised on extrinsic evidence which may not be considered on a motion to strike.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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