In re BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ v. PATRYCJA SAYARAD

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 24-03033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SS NG NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA □□□□ Signed and Filed: May 5, 2026 □□□□ OL 2

4 Vin fod 5 DENNISMONTALL | U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 6 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 In re ) Bankruptcy Case No. 24-30431-DM 10 ) BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ, ) Chapter 7 11 ) ) 12 Debtor. ) 13 ) ) 14 ||PATRYCJA SAYARAD, ) Adversary Proceeding 15 ) No. 24-03033-DM Plaintiff, ) 16 ) Hearing Held Vv. ) Date: April 20, 2026 17 ) Time: 10:00 a.m. 18 BLYTH ANDREA BUTLER-LOPEZ, ) Place: Courtroom 17, 16 Floor ) 450 Golden Gate Ave 19 Defendant. San Francisco, CA 20 MEMORANDUM DECISION DETERMINING NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF LIABILITY 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 The court held a hearing on a Motion for Default Judgment DA at the above-captioned date and time on Plaintiff Patrycja 25 Sayarad’s (“Sayarad”) Complaint to Determine Nondischargeability 26 of Debt under Section 523(a)(6).! At the conclusion of the 27 28 1 All Section and Rule references refer to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et. seq. and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1

1 hearing, the court took the matter under submission. For the 2 reasons stated below, the court HEREBY GRANTS default judgment 3 in favor of Sayarad and determines that Defendant Blyth Andrea 4 Butler-Lopez’s (“Butler-Lopez”) liability to Sayarad in the 5 amount of $155,478.32 is excepted from the discharge pursuant to 6 Section 523(a)(6). 7 II. BACKGROUND2 8 Sayarad and Butler-Lopez became Facebook friends without 9 meeting or knowing each other offline sometime in July 2019. 10 Once in November 2019 and once in December 2019, the parties met 11 in person with their respective children in tow. The parties 12 maintained an online Facebook friendship until January 2021. 13 Sometime in 2020, Butler-Lopez began reaching out to mutual 14 Facebook connections and falsely accusing Sayarad of multiple 15 crimes, including child abuse, prostitution, property theft, and 16 identity theft. This activity continued through at least 2023. 17 Between October 2021 and July 2023, Butler-Lopez filed 18 seven (7) police reports with the San Francisco Police 19 Department accusing Sayarad of stalking, theft, identity theft, 20 and harassment.3 It does not appear to the court that the police 21 acted on any of those reports. 22 Due to the acts undertaken by Butler-Lopez described in 23 this section and the acts giving rise to her nondischarbeability 24 described in the Discussion Section, on July 23, 2022, Sayarad 25

26 2 This Memorandum Decision constitutes the court’s findings of 27 fact and conclusions of law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052(a).

28 3 Butler-Lopez filed three more police reports post-bankruptcy 1 filed a complaint for defamation, harassment, and conspiracy in 2 the California Superior Court against Butler-Lopez and four 3 other defendants. That lawsuit was stayed as to Butler-Lopez on 4 June 7, 2024, when she filed bankruptcy. Sayarad later settled 5 with one other defendant for $140,000. 6 This adversary proceeding was initiated on September 6, 7 2024 via the Complaint (Dkt. 1). The record reflects a long 8 history of Butler-Lopez stonewalling discovery requests and 9 destroying evidence. The court ultimately sanctioned Butler- 10 Lopez by striking her Answer from the record and converting a 11 scheduled trial to a prove-up hearing on a Motion for Default 12 Judgment (Dkt. 250). 13 This Memorandum Decision focuses only on those acts that 14 the court has found to be proven by a preponderance of the 15 evidence, and further finds that Butler-Lopez, by those acts 16 willfully and maliciously caused injury to Sayarad which is 17 nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6). 18 III. APPLICABLE LAW 19 Generally, motions for default judgment are evaluated on a 20 number of factors, including “(1) the possibility of prejudice 21 to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of the plaintiff's substantive 22 claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of 23 money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute 24 concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to 25 excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the 26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the 27 merits.” In re McGee, 359 B.R. 764, 771 (9th Cir. BAP 2006). 28 Because this is a prove-up hearing and this adversary proceeding 1 was heavily litigated prior to the striking of the Butler- 2 Lopez’s Answer, the majority of these factors weigh in favor of 3 Sayarad. 4 California law defines written defamation, otherwise known 5 as, libel as “a false and unprivileged publication by writing, 6 printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the 7 eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or 8 obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which 9 has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Cal. Civ. Code 10 § 45. “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication 11 that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has 12 a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.” Wong v. 13 Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747, 761 (2010). 14 Publication “does not require dissemination to a 15 substantial number of individuals; it suffices that the 16 defamatory matter is communicated to a single individual other 17 than the one defamed.” Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal.4th 1193, 31 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 776, 875 P.2d 1279, 1284 (1994). 19 In order for liability for any injury, including an injury 20 caused by defamatory statements, to be excepted from discharge 21 pursuant to Section 523(a)(6), a defendant must have acted 22 willfully and maliciously in causing the injury. An injurious 23 act is willful “when the debtor has a subjective motive to 24 inflict injury or when the debtor believes that injury is 25 substantially certain to result from his own conduct.” In re Su, 26 290 F.3d 1140, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002). See also Kawaauhau v. 27 Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 118 S.Ct. 974 (1998). “A ‘malicious' 28 injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) 1 which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just 2 cause or excuse.’” In re Su, 290 F.3d at 1146-47 (quoting In re 3 Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 IV. DISCUSSION 5 A. Butler-Lopez Willfully, Maliciously, and Repeatedly 6 Defamed Sayarad 7 Sayarad has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence 8 that in March 2022 Butler-Lopez published to a broad audience on 9 Facebook, including Sayarad’s friends and real estate clients, 10 false statements that Sayarad stalked Butler-Lopez; impersonated 11 Butler-Lopez to speak to men; and engaged in online affairs with 12 men. This publication caused at least one real estate client to 13 stop working with her. The publication also had a tendency to 14 injure Sayarad’s occupation as a real estate agent, which 15 depends on appearing stable, professional, and reliable. These 16 comments were made in concert with other posts from related 17 contacts that all disparaged Sayarad. The court determines that 18 Butler-Lopez made these false statements with the subjective 19 motive to injure Sayarad. The court further determines that 20 these statements were wrongful, intentionally made, caused 21 injury to Sayarad, and were made without just cause or excuse. 22 Through the testimony of witness Heather Chavez, and 23 through exhibits of multiple police reports filed by Butler- 24 Lopez, and state court transcripts,4 Sayarad has demonstrated

25 26 4 On October 13, 2022, Butler-Lopez sought a Civil Harassment Restraining Order against Sayarad. Butler-Lopez submitted as 27 evidence what she claimed was a voicemail from Sayarad, which 28 was replete with racial epithets, cursing, and an affirmation that Sayarad sexually abused her son. The state court judge 1 that Butler-Lopez published to Ms. Chavez and others false 2 statements about Sayarad, including that Sayarad sexually and 3 physically abused her son; abused her role as a real estate 4 agent to steal Butler-Lopez’ personal information; and stole 5 Butler-Lopez’ credit cards. These statements are extreme 6 accusations of multiple crimes, and exposed Sayarad to hatred 7 and obloquy. The court determines that Butler-Lopez made these 8 false statements with the subjective motive to injure Sayarad. 9 The court further determines that these statements were 10 wrongful, intentionally made, caused injury to Sayarad, and were 11 made without just cause or excuse. 12 Through Sayarad’s relevant exhibits, and the testimony of 13 Sayarad and Heather Chavez, the court determines in June 2022, 14 Butler-Lopez, via a pseudonymous profile, left the Yelp review 15 described above depicting falsified Twitter posts that appeared 16 to be Sayarad making racist comments and threats against public 17 figures. This publication prompted swift action from her 18 employer that did not result in her firing but did damage her 19 reputation. 20 The court determines that Butler-Lopez published the Yelp 21 review with the subjective motive to injure Sayarad via firing 22 or other professional harm. The court further determines that

23 found the voicemail to have been fabricated and warned Butler- 24 Lopez that there would be future legal consequences for 25 presenting false evidence. The judge ultimately denied the request for a restraining order and ordered that Butler-Lopez 26 pay Sayarad’s attorney’s fees. Sayarad does not seek to except those fees from discharge, but the underlying facts that Butler- 27 Lopez previously fabricated outrageous evidence against Sayarad 28 in order to accuse her of the acts Sayarad describes in this matter is relevant to the court’s determination. 1 the publication was wrongful, intentionally made, caused injury 2 to Sayarad, and was done without just cause or excuse. 3 Sayarad has shown that in March 2022, shortly after 4 publishing the defamatory statements discussed above, Butler- 5 Lopez published Sayarad’s public real estate agent profile 6 listed on the United Brokers Real Estate website, which included 7 Sayarad’s phone number. Shortly after this publication, Sayarad 8 began receiving harassing and threatening calls and messages, 9 which did not cease until she changed her phone number in 10 November 2023. This publication, along with the Yelp review 11 described above, prompted Sayarad to remove her profile and 12 phone number from her employer’s website and promotional 13 materials. Sayarad suffered mentally and emotionally from the 14 many phone calls and messages. Because she has removed herself 15 from her brokerage’s website and promotional materials, she has 16 been unable to cultivate new clients. 17 B. Damages 18 Actual Damages: As a result of the defamatory statements 19 and harassment caused by Butler-Lopez, Sayarad incurred expenses 20 to remove her contact information from business fliers and 21 signage for open houses, as well as medical expenses following a 22 panic attack due to the stress of the harassment. These 23 expenses combined total $5,478.32. 24 General Damages: In addition to the actual damages 25 incurred, Sayarad seeks general presumed damages for 26 reputational harm and emotional distress for the shame, 27 mortification, and hurt feelings caused by Butler-Lopez’s 28 campaign of defamation and harassment. While Sayarad could have 1 provided guidance regarding lost income due to her inability to 2 find new clients online, she did not. There are no examples of 3 what Sayarad’s income was prior to the Butler-Lopez’s defamation 4 and harassment campaign, and nothing demonstrating the extent to 5 which that income has been reduced after. All the court has is 6 (1) former broker of record Dallas Hom’s estimate that Sayarad’s 7 sales have reduced by 50% since she has removed her information 8 from the United Brokers Real Estate website and other 9 promotional materials, and (2) and the statement of current 10 broker of record Ms. Wong that Sayarad still is a “top 11 performer”. With no guidance for the court, it determines that 12 Sayarad’s damages for pain, distress, and lost income amount to 13 $150,000. 14 Punitive Damages: Sayarad has asked the court to award her 15 punitive damages of $2.5 million dollars. She has not 16 articulated a cogent reason for her request and apparently 17 overlooks one of the guiding principles of punitive damage 18 awards, namely the ability of a defendant to respond to such an 19 award. Kaffaga v. Estate of Steinbeck, 938 F.3d 1006, 1018 (“It 20 is the plaintiff's burden to place into the record “meaningful 21 evidence of the defendant's financial condition” to support a 22 defendant's ability to pay” an award of punitive damages.) 23 (internal quotation omitted). It is well-established that 24 Butler-Lopez has just gone through Chapter 7 bankruptcy. 25 Although she has obtained a discharge of many of her debts, this 26 court has already imposed a new post-petition liability of 27 28 1 nearly $189,218,625 and by this decision, adds another $155,478. 2 There is no reason to believe she will be able to respond even 3 to that amount, let alone an additional amount as requested. 4 Another well-established principle at work here is that 5 punitive damages are to punish and deter repetition. Boyle v. 6 Lorimar Productions, Inc., 13 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Ninth Cir. 1994) 7 (Punitive damages should “not exceed an amount necessary to 8 accomplish society’s goals of punishment and deterrence.”) 9 (internal quotation omitted). If the court thought any 10 additional monetary liability might deter Butler-Lopez, it might 11 be persuaded. That is not the case. Butler-Lopez needs help 12 and rehabilitation, but this court is in no position to provide 13 it. 14 For these reasons, the court declines to award any punitive 15 damages. 16 V. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, the court will enter a concurrent judgment 18 stating that the nondischargeable liability owed to Sayarad by 19 Butler-Lopez is $155,478.32. 20

21 **END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION**

22 23 24 25 26 5 The court levied a $1,000 sanction for violation of Rule 9011 (Dkt. 223); awarded attorney’s fees to Sayarad’s counsel in the 27 amount of $157,441.45 for the successful request for sanctions for discovery violations (Dkt. 259); and awarded attorney’s fees 28 to Sayarad’s counsel in the amount of $30,777.17 for the 1 COURT SERVICE LIST 2 Blyth Andrea Butler-Lopez 3 PO Box 320113 San Francisco, CA 94132 4 bblopez805@gmail.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28