Schneider v. Domeyer CA4/1

── Schneider v. Domeyer CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 Schneider v. Domeyer CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MARK SCHNEIDER, D086228 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023-00043492- CU-OR-CTL) v. MARK DOMEYER et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Caietti, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Schneider, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce and Nabeel M. Zuberi for Defendants and Respondents. INTRODUCTION Mark Schneider appeals the trial court’s judgment after it sustained a demurrer and granted two motions to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute,1 1 SLAPP is an acronym that refers to a strategic lawsuit against public participation. (Geiser v. Kuhns (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1238, 1242.) Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16,2 and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. He filed no opposition to the motions in the trial court but claims the court erred in granting them as unopposed because service was improper and constitutionally inadequate. He also argues the court erred in finding his complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for quiet title. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2019, a deed of trust was recorded for “Julie C. Schneider, a married woman as her sole and separate property” securing a $406,036 loan for property in Spring Valley. (Capitalization omitted.) Mark was not named as a borrower or signatory.3 A loan modification was recorded in April 2021. It again named “Julie . . . , a married woman as her sole and separate property” as the borrower and did not name Mark. (Capitalization omitted.) The deed of trust was assigned to a mortgage company in May 2022. The next month, a non-judicial foreclosure service provider was substituted as trustee, and a notice of default and election to sell under deed of trust was recorded. The notice stated that the default amount was $22,380.68. A notice of trustee’s sale was recorded in September 2022. The property sold at foreclosure to Freedom Mortgage Corporation. In October 2022, Julie filed a wrongful foreclosure action in federal court. In January 2023, the federal district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 Because Mark and Julie share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names. We do so for the sake of clarity, intending no disrespect. 2 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Because that was “the sole federal claim,” the court “decline[d] to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” It dismissed the state law claims without prejudice to being refiled in state court. In January 2023, Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation filed an unlawful detainer action against Julie “and all unknown occupants.” (Capitalization omitted.) In October 2023, Mark filed his verified complaint for quiet title in this action. Defendant Mark Domeyer then filed a verified answer and Defendants Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Stanley Mid