YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM

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

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal 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:

Plaintiff in pro per Yakovlev’s motion to set aside dismissal “pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and the Court’s inherent equitable authority” is ruled upon as follows.

Neither the initial, amended nor second amended notice of motion provides notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith and advise client of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If plaintiff is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Factual Background

This personal injury action was commenced by plaintiff in pro per Yakovlev on 5/22/2025. On 6/18/2025, defendant Amazon.com, Inc. filed a “Notice of Unauthorized Filing by Vexatious Litigant, Automatic Stay, and Pending Automatic Dismissal Pursuant to C.C.P. [sic] Section 391.7(c).” Although plaintiff subsequently filed a series of objections to this “Notice of Unauthorized Filing by Vexatious Litigant” as well as an ex parte application (which was denied on 7/10/2025), this Court by Minute Order dated 7/10/2025 stated that “as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(c),” plaintiff’s complaint “is automatically DISMISSED, nunc pro tunc, as of June 30, 2025 (given that June 28, 2025 fell on a weekend)” and directed the Court Clerk to enter a dismissal of this action.

Moving Papers. According to the initial moving papers filed on 7/14/2025, plaintiff seeks “an order setting aside the dismissal entered in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and the Court’s inherent equitable authority on the grounds that the dismissal was based on an erroneous designation of plaintiff as a vexatious litigant “due to either identity theft or a misassigned Social Security Number” and the vexatious litigant order which was entered in 2009 does not relate or refer to the plaintiff in this case. The initial Notice of Motion not only seeks to have vacated “the automatic dismissal entered under the vexatious litigant statute” but also the following additional relief:

“Strik[ing] the vexatious litigant designation as it is based on fraudulent records;”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 53

“Issu[ing] a protective order preventing disclosure of Plaintiff’s personal information;” “Grant[ing] leave to amend pleadings due to prior filing errors caused by identity confusion, disability, and extreme distress;” and “Order[ing] Defendant to cease misgendering Plaintiff in all future filings.” (7/14/2025 Not. of Mot., p.2:3-9.)

In the Notice of Amended Motion filed on 7/28/2025, plaintiff includes additional requests for relief in the form of a protective order (1) “requiring Defendant to remove all identifiable personal information of Plaintiff from previous pleadings and filings in this case;” (2) “sealing the entire case file to protect Plaintiff from further harassment, threats, and discrimination;” and (3) “permitting Plaintiff to proceed under the pseudonym ‘Doe’ in all future filings and proceedings in this action.” (7/28/2025 Not. of Am. Mot., p.1:25-p.2:3.) Although worded somewhat differently, the Notice of Second Amended Motion filed on 10/13/2025 appears to seek the same relief set forth in the prior notices relating to the “redaction and removal of personal information,” “sealing of the case file,” and “use of a pseudonym.” (10/13/2025 Not. of Sec. Am. Mot., p.1:25- p.2:10.)

Opposition. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. opposes, arguing that this motion must be denied for several reasons. First, plaintiff is “an adjudged vexatious litigant whose name appears on the statewide Vexatious Litigant list” and is therefore “prohibited by statute and by court order from having filed this action.” While plaintiff now claims to be a non-binary individual, there have been at least 16 other prohibited pro per lawsuits throughout the state in the past two years and in connection with plaintiff’s ex parte application set for 7/10/2025, defendant “demonstrated by clear evidence and supporting legal authority that Plaintiff in this action is the same individual who was previously adjudged to be a vexatious litigant and who is prohibited by a Prefiling Order (and thus by statute) from filing pro per lawsuits in California.”

Second, the opposition insists the various papers filed in support of the present motion “are littered with rambling nonsense; fallacious arguments; inapposite-and in some cases completely fake-legal citations presumably prepared by artificial intelligence; exhibits that are provably fabricated and/or irrelevant; and outright lies, in many instances under penalty of perjury.” However, plaintiff’s claim of not being the person subject to the prior Prefiling Order remains “demonstrably false” because, in addition to what was previously presented to the Court in connection with the 7/10/2025 ex parte, defendant “has since amassed voluminous evidence from Plaintiff’s own filings in other court cases demonstrating, without question, that Plaintiff is the same individual identified in the Prefiling Order” (i.e., same date of birth; filings “reflect the same idiosyncrasies and tell-tale markings that characterize Plaintiff’s filings in this case, including identical ‘Alex’ signatures”). As a result, this action was properly dismissed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 11/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal in Department 53

by operation of law and this obviates the need for the Court to consider the merits of the “faulty motion” presented here.

Third, defendant Amazon contends that plaintiff “has perpetrated upon the Court” several “deliberate misrepresentations” and therefore renews its prior request for imposition of sanctions to deter plaintiff’s continuing and escalating abuse of California’s judicial system.

Discussion

After a careful review of the evidentiary record in this matter, this Court finds the plaintiff in the case at bar who is using the name of “Ale Yakovlev” is more likely than not the same individual who was in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-484709 (Alex Yakovlev v. Visa Purchase Security Enhancement Services determined to be a vexatious litigant in 2009 and at that time became subject to a prefiling order prohibiting the filing of any new litigation without representation of an attorney unless the Presiding Judge has first granted leave to for such new litigation.

In light of the foregoing, this Court holds that the moving papers here have failed to set forth any valid legal and/or factual basis for setting aside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and/or the Court’s inherent equitable authority” the previouslyentered mandatory dismissal of this action in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §391.7(c). Consequently, the present motion brought by plaintiff Yakovlev to set aside dismissal must be and hereby is DENIED in its entirety.

As this matter was previously dismissed and the present motion is denied in its entirety, the Court declines to impose any of the sanctions sought by the opposition papers.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, defendant to prepare a proposed order consistent with the foregoing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)