NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Alex Emer’s (“Defendant”) “first amended motion for sanctions for fraud upon the court, pattern of bad faith litigation, harassment by false identification, and continued misconduct after safe harbor notice and judicial rebuke” against Plaintiff Nordstrom, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows. Defendant is self-represented.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to court filings, Rules of Court, Judicial Council Form EFS-005-CV, Defendant’s listed “judicially noticeable facts,” is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to arbitration documents and Plaintiff’s terms and conditions is DENIED.

Plaintiff filed its complaint in this action on September 30, 2025. The Court, in its concurrent ruling on Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons, found that Defendant has been properly served with the summons and complaint in this action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Fraud Upon Court in Department 28

In the instant motion, Defendant moves for an order imposing sanctions for: “(A) submission of false proof of service under penalty of perjury; (B) filing premature motions to compel in violation of statutory deadlines; (C) failure to withdraw frivolous motions after safe harbor notice and timely service of responses; (D) continued harassment by false name associations after explicit written prohibition; and (E) pattern of discovery abuse continuing after explicit judicial rebuke.” (Notice, 2:27 – 3:4.) Defendant rings this motion “pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers, CCP §§ 418.10, 128.7, 2023.010, and 2023.030, California Rules of Court, rule 2.30, and under the Court’s authority to impose punitive and deterrent sanctions for fraud on the court and pattern of misconduct, as clarified by City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46.” (Notice, 3:6-9.)

Defendant sets forth that Plaintiff filed premature motions to compel discovery responses against Defendant and an invalid deposition notice on Defendant and refused to withdraw the premature discovery motions and invalid deposition notice after the filing of a safe harbor notice by Defendant.

(In its January 26, 2026 Order, the Court stated, “The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery were filed prematurely... Defendant then served responses on December 7, 2025, within the 30-day time limit.” The Court also stated, “The Court agrees with Defendant that the deposition is facially invalid in that it seeks to depose Plaintiff at a location beyond the geographical limits of CCP section 2025.250.” (January 26, 2026 Court Order).

Defendant argues that after the January 26, 2026 ruling, Plaintiff again served him with a defective deposition notice which set the location outside of the geographical limits of CCP section 2025.250. Defendant also claims that Plaintiff is using aliases for Defendant, including “cat” usernames, to harass him. Defendant also accuses Plaintiff of submitting false papers in support of its service of its summons and complaint on Defendant.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues that sanctions are not available to Defendant under the statutory provisions he cites. Plaintiff argues that sanctions for discovery motions under CCP § 128.7 are expressly disallowed: “This section shall not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions.” CCP § 128.7(g). The same is true of CCP § 128.5, which Defendant also invokes. See CCP § 128.5(e) (verbatim). Moreover, Plaintiff argues that this Court has already declined to issue sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act related to Nordstrom’s initial motions to compel. (See Jan. 26, 2026 Order: “[T]he Court is not persuaded that sanctions are warranted under section 2023.030.”)

Plaintiff also argues that aliases listed in Nordstrom’s Complaint are derived from public records

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Fraud Upon Court in Department 28

and public court filings; Nordstrom did not generate them. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, at 2 (Notice of Remote Appearance, Yakovlev v. Saifi, No. 25-CV-008585 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Apr. 9, 2025)) (plaintiff “Ale Yakovlev,” who upon information and belief is Defendant Alex Emer, submitted a proof of service signed by an individual purporting to be “Carl Britishshorhair”); see also Compl. ¶¶ 85, 100-101.) Indeed, in response to Nordstrom’s Form Interrogatory No. 2.1(b), which asks, “State . . . . every name you have used in the past,” Defendant responded: “The names listed in the caption of Plaintiff's Complaint.” (Decl. of V. Milstead in Supp. of Nordstrom’s Mot. to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, at Exs. 3-4 (filed Jan. 27, 2026).)

Plaintiff additionally argues that Defendant accuses Plaintiff’s counsel of “material falsehoods,” because they have signed proofs of service attesting that Defendant agreed to or requested electronic service of documents, but this Court found that “Defendant expressly consented to electronic service in his discovery requests, and filed his consent with the Court” and “regarding Defendant’s argument that he has not agreed to electronic service, the Court disagrees.” (January 26, 2026 Order at p. 3.)

The Court concludes that sanctions are not available to Defendant based on the conduct he sets forth in his motion. The Court has already ruled against sanctions in relation to the motions to compel ruled upon on January 26, 2026. The additional conduct complained of by Defendant is not sanctionable.

Defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order and serve and file a proposed order re same. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)