Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Nonc Pro Tunc Defendants Motion for 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Nonc Pro Tunc Defendants Motion for Sanctions 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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

In pro per Plaintiff Vay Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike Nunc Pro Tunc Defendant Changjiang Li’s (“Li”) Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff and the Related Opposition and Reply is DENIED as follows.

Plaintiff moves to strike Li’s motion for sanctions filed on December 31, 2024, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 435, et seq.

A party-made motion to strike can be used to attack all or part of a “pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Pleading” is specifically defined to mean “a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint” and does not include any and all other documents that may also be filed in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (a)(2).)

As applied here, Li’s motion for sanctions, which was brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 and which Plaintiff presently seeks to strike, is not a “pleading” as defined by Code of Civil Procedure section 435(a)(2). Similarly, an opposition and reply brief filed in association with a Section 128.7 sanctions motion are also not “pleadings” as defined by Section 435(a)(2). Therefore, the filings which Plaintiff seeks to strike fall beyond the reach of a Code of Civil Procedure section 435 motion to strike. On this basis alone, Plaintiff’s motion to strike must be and is denied.

Furthermore, while Civil Procedure Code sections 435 and 436 have no application to the documents that Plaintiff seeks strike by this motion, the Court also notes that when a proper party-made motion to strike is directed to a “pleading,” such motion must be served and filed “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) That is, a properly made motion to strike “a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint,” must be made by the specifically applicable deadline to respond to such a pleading. Thus, even if Plaintiff had moved to strike such a “pleading”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00286639-CU-PO-GDS: Vay Williams vs. Happy Day Wellness Spa, Inc 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Nonc Pro Tunc Defendants Motion for Sanctions in Department 16D

(which Plaintiff does not seek), Plaintiff’s motion, filed on March 4, 2026, would be untimely in response to any “pleading” filed on December 31, 2024. Notably, the reference in Section 436 to “at any time in its discretion” relates solely to a Court-made discretionary motion to strike and not a party-made motion to strike which remains subject to Section 435(b)(1).

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.

To the extent Plaintiff asks in its moving papers, in the alternative, for leave to file in a separate, later pleading a motion that the subject documents be filed under seal, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal the subject documents, which is scheduled for hearing in this Department on September 1, 2026. The Court will not address the merits of such request at this time.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)