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 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

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:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Plaintiff in pro per Ale Yakovlev’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 11/10/2025 order denying plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal and for other relief is DENIED, as follows.

Neither plaintiff’s initial nor 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.

Plaintiff’s Amended Motion filed on 4/1/2026 includes a request for various accommodations but the Court previously addressed plaintiff’s subsequent and thereby superseding request for accommodations confidentially submitted by plaintiff on Form MC-410 which was received by the Court on 4/9/2026 and was ruled upon on 4/13/ 2026. The Court’s ruling thereby obviates the need to address such issues in this ruling. Given the confidential nature of the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s Form MC-410 request, the Court does not refer to its substance here.

Factual Background

This personal injury action was commenced by plaintiff in pro per Ale 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

Court Clerk to enter a dismissal of this action.

On 7/14/2025, plaintiff filed a motion for “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” but the motion by plaintiff, which was heard on 11/6/2025, was ultimately denied by this Court with a Ruling on Submitted Matter (“ROSM”) dated 11/10/2025.

On 11/12/2025, plaintiff filed the initial moving papers seeking reconsideration of the Court’s 11/10/2025 order denying plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal and for other relief but on 4/1/2026, plaintiff filed a “First Amended Motion for Reconsideration.” According to this “First Amended Motion,” plaintiff is moving “pursuant to CCP [sic] sections 1008(a), 473(b), and 473(d), the Court’s inherent equitable powers, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, §7 of the California Constitution” in order to “challenge the July 10, 2025 dismissal and the November 10, 2025 order denying relief.” (Am.

Mot., p.1:15-16; p.2:19- 21.) Plaintiff contends “[t]he dismissal is void because it was never signed by a judge as required by CCP [sic] §581d” and “was based on filings never properly served on Plaintiff,” while “[t]he November 10, 2025 order is void because it relied on Defendant’s unauthenticated, facially invalid evidence, applied the wrong legal standard for identity verification, and relied on improperly served filings,” with “[t]he Court fail[ing] to investigate Defendant’s evidence before accepting it.” (Id., at p.1:16-19.)

In addition to reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and vacating both the 11/10/2025 ROSM and 7/10/2025 dismissal, plaintiff also requests the Court to do the following:

Declare that defendant’s Exhibit I (fabricated Russian birth certificate) and signature exhibits are fraudulent and of no evidentiary value; Declare that the May 26, 2009 vexatious litigant order from San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-09-484709 does not apply to plaintiff; Reinstate plaintiff’s case and permit it to proceed on the merits; Order defendant to serve all future pleadings, notices, and court filings exclusively at plaintiff’s General Delivery address in Folsom, California 95630, and prohibiting electronic service absent plaintiff’s express written consent on Judicial Council Form EFS-005-CV. (Id., at p.2:10-17.)

Legal Standards for Reconsideration

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a) (underline added for emphasis).)

“Courts have construed section 1008 to require a party filing an application for reconsideration or a renewed application to show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not having presented the new or different information earlier.” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 839 (underline added for emphasis); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) Where a moving party “easily could have obtained” the proffered “new” evidence previously, or had the “new” evidence in its possession since the outset of litigation, the evidence is not “new” for purposes of section 1008. (New York Times, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 213-214.) “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.” (Id.; see also, Foothills Townhome Assn. v.

Christiansen (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 688, 692 (disapproved on other grounds in Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82) [plaintiff's belief that certain evidence was not necessary at hearing on summary judgment insufficient to justify reconsideration].)

Further, the burden is on the moving party is to provide “a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier, which can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) The court in Garcia held that “section 1008’s reference to ‘new or different’ facts [does] not make the section’s prerequisites less restrictive. [Section 1008 requires a] threshold showing of diligence which has long required an ‘explanation’ of why the ‘newly discovered’ matter was not presented earlier.

Garcia would have us say this requirement is met by anything not previously ‘presented’ to the court. The miserable result would be to defeat the Legislature’s stated goal of reducing the number of reconsideration motions and would remove an important incentive for parties to efficiently marshal their evidence.” (Id. at 688-89.) The Garcia Court further found that “[t]he information consisting of Garcia’s own declared knowledge was obviously always within his possession, and no satisfactory explanation appeared for not bringing it out earlier,” such that it was not the sort of “new” evidence required by section 1008. (Id. at 690.)

Discussion

At the outset, the Court notes that the moving papers include several references to plaintiff’s status as a self-represented, pro se litigant. However, self-represented litigants are to be treated like any other party, entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigant or attorney. (See, e.g., Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.) Self-represented litigants are obliged to follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (See, e.g., McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) In fact, at least one appellate decision states that a rule either requiring or permitting special treatment of parties who represent themselves “would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

(Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant does not entitle plaintiff to any special treatment here, nor increased scrutiny, due to plaintiff’s lack of legal training or experience. (See, e.g., Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.)

As discussed in the preceding section, this Court’s authority to reconsider a prior order is expressly limited to those situations where the party seeking reconsideration first establishes the existence of some new or different facts, circumstances or law. (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a).) Indeed, a court “acts in excess of jurisdiction” when it grants a motion to reconsider which is not based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) As such, a motion for reconsideration which merely argues that the court previously misinterpreted or misapplied relevant law and reached a determination claimed to be incorrect or unsupported is not a valid basis on which to obtain reconsideration. (Id.)

Moreover, where the motion is properly based on the existence of new or different facts, circumstances or law, the moving party must not only demonstrate that the new or different facts, circumstances or law could not with reasonable diligence have been presented to the court prior to the order for which reconsideration is sought but also that there is a satisfactory explanation for the party not previously providing the new or different facts, circumstances or law. (See, e.g., Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc., supra, 61 Cal.4th at 839; New York Times Co., supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at 212-214; Foothills Townhome Assn., supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at 692.) With these jurisdictional standards for reconsideration in mind, the Court now turns to the various contentions advanced by plaintiff as support for plaintiff’s request to have the 11/10/2025 ROSM reconsidered and vacated.

Initial Moving Papers Filed on 11/12/2025. Plaintiff’s initial moving papers seeking reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM were filed on 11/12/2025 and they expressly indicate plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is premised on four (4) specific grounds. (See, 11/12/2025 Mot., p.2:26-p.3:9.) However, as indicated above, plaintiff subsequently filed on 4/1/2026 a document entitled “First Amended Motion for Reconsideration,” which “amended” motion in effect supersedes the initial moving papers filed on 11/12/2025 and renders the latter substantively inoperative. (See, e.g., Bassett-McGregor v.

Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1102, 1116; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.) As such, this Court need not independently consider the arguments or evidence set forth in those initial moving papers but it nevertheless does so in order to explain why plaintiff is not, in the first instance, entitled to reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM.

The initial moving papers filed on 11/12/2025 set forth four (4) specific grounds for reconsideration:

1. Newly discovered evidence of a coordinated and systemic fraud pattern, as documented in a new federal civil rights action;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

2. Fabricated evidence and material misrepresentations to the Court including false exhibits and unauthenticated “copies of copies;” 3. Jurisdictional defects and void service that invalidate the underlying dismissal which the Court’s 11/10/2025 ROSM erroneously overlooked; and 4. Defendant’s unclean hands and bad-faith litigation conduct, including the use of falsified evidence, improper service, and harassment of a self-represented disabled litigant. (11/12/2025 Mot., p.2:26-p.3:9)

As will now be shown, none of these four grounds constitutes a valid basis for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a).

The first ground of “newly discovered evidence of a coordinated and systemic fraud pattern, as documented in a new federal civil rights action” refers to a lawsuit filed by plaintiff (not under the name of “Ale Yakovlev” as in the case at bar but rather under the name of “Alexandr Yakovlev”) in the Eastern District of California on 10/27/2025. (11/12/2025 Mot., Ex. H; 12/23/2025 Asfour Decl., Ex. A.) This lawsuit is not fairly characterized as “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of §1008 insofar as plaintiff claims to have filed this federal civil rights lawsuit as a pro se litigant and this lawsuit is, by its own terms, premised on facts and circumstances which not only existed prior to 10/27/2025 but were necessarily known to plaintiff prior to 10/27/2025.

In fact, the amended complaint which plaintiff filed on 11/3/2025 explicitly refers to events which occurred in September 2025 and which were obviously known to plaintiff prior to 10/27/2025. Thus, it is indisputable that such facts and circumstances not only existed well before to the 11/6/2025 hearing on plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal but also were known to plaintiff before the 11/6/2025 hearing. Because these facts and circumstances could have been brought to the attention of this Court before the 11/6/2025 hearing on plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal (i.e., in plaintiff’s moving papers or if necessary, in reply papers if not available earlier), plaintiff’s assertion that this constitutes “newly discovered evidence” which justifies reconsideration must be rejected and this alone mandates denial of the present motion.

In light of the foregoing, the Court need not proceed further but even assuming arguendo that plaintiff’s federal lawsuit could somehow be characterized as “newly discovered” facts or circumstances, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that these “newly discovered” facts or circumstances could not with reasonable diligence have been provided to the Court before the 11/6/2025 hearing on the prior motion to set aside dismissal. Indeed, as set forth in the 11/10/2025 ROSM, in support of the prior motion to set aside plaintiff filed an initial set of moving papers on 7/14/2025, an amended motion on 7/28/2025 and a second amended motion on 10/13/2025, the latter of which could have easily included a discussion of the various events which occurred in September 2025 and which shortly thereafter became the basis for plaintiff’s federal action filed on 10/27/2025.

In any event, plaintiff could at minimum have addressed in the reply papers filed on 10/28/2025 not only the events which occurred in September 2025 but also the fact that plaintiff had already filed the federal action if such facts were somehow truly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

unavailable with reasonable diligence at the time of filing the moving papers on 7/14/2025 or the amended motion on 7/28/2025. Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that these “newly discovered” facts or circumstances which culminated in the 10/27/2025 federal action could not with reasonable diligence have been provided to the Court at or before the 11/6/2025 hearing on plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal, reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM is not permitted under §1008.

Finally, it must be added here that even if plaintiff could have somehow satisfied the various prerequisites for reconsideration under §1008, the present motion would still be denied because neither the existence of plaintiff’s pending federal action nor the allegations found therein has any substantive bearing on the disposition of the prior plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside which, as detailed in the 10/10/2025 ROSM, turned on the limited facts and circumstances discussed therein. That plaintiff contends the Third District Court of Appeal and/or the El Dorado County Superior Court or their respective personnel deprived plaintiff of federal civil rights is of no legal consequence in the present lawsuit.

Therefore, this Court’s consideration of plaintiff’s claimed “newly discovered evidence of a coordinated and systemic fraud pattern, as documented in a new federal civil rights action” (even if it could somehow be considered) would not result in a different outcome on the prior motion to set aside dismissal.

Each of the remaining three (3) grounds cited as support for the initial moving papers filed on 11/12/2025 (i.e., “Fabricated evidence and material misrepresentations to the Court;” “Jurisdictional defects and void service that invalidate the underlying dismissal;” and “Defendant’s unclean hands and bad-faith litigation conduct, including the use of falsified evidence, improper service, and harassment of a self-represented disabled litigant”) also fall short of providing a valid basis for reconsideration under §1008(a).

First, none of these grounds is fairly characterized as new or different facts, circumstances or law within the meaning of §1008 insofar all three of these grounds were set forth in great detail in the various papers which plaintiff filed prior to and in connection with the motion to set aside dismissal that was heard on 11/6/2025 and preceded the 11/10/2025 ROSM at issue here. (See, Pl.’s 7/14/2025 Mot., pp.1-2, 4-6; Pl.’s 7/28/2025 Am. Mot., pp.1-4; Pl.’s 2d 10/13/2025 2d Am Mot., pp.1, 3-13; Pl.’s 10/28/2025 Reply, pp.3-10, 13-21, 23-25.)

Thus, none of these grounds is sufficient to invoke this Court’s limited statutory jurisdiction to reconsider its 11/10/2025 ROSM (see, e.g., Gilberd, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500 [court “acts in excess of jurisdiction” when it grants reconsideration not based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law]) and moreover, to the extent plaintiff is in the present motion for reconsideration arguing that this Court misinterpreted or misapplied relevant law and/or reached conclusion not supported by the evidence, this too is not a valid basis on which to obtain reconsideration. (Id.)

That said, even if this Court were to entertain anew these three additional grounds advanced in the moving papers filed on 11/12/2025, they would not alter the Court’s analysis of the prior motion to set aside and would not lead to a result different from that specified in the 11/10/2025 ROSM.

Supplemental Points & Authorities Filed on 3/9/2026. In this “supplemental” filing, plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

sets forth what are purportedly “three independent grounds for vacating the orders entered in this action,” to wit:

1. The July 10, 2025 purported dismissal is void because it was never signed by a judge as required by CCP §581d and was never served on plaintiff; 2. The November 10, 2025 order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal applied the wrong legal standard for identity verification, ignored dispositive evidence proving plaintiff is not the 2009 vexatious litigant, and failed to follow the verification procedure under Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536; and 3. The January 28, 2026 ex parte order advancing the hearing date is void because defendant served by unauthorized email without consent, providing insufficient notice under CRC 3.1203 and Sacramento County Local Rule 2.35(A). (3/9/2026 Supp. MPA, p.1:9-20.)

None of these three (3) grounds constitutes a valid basis for reconsideration under §1008(a). The first one relating the underlying dismissal being “void” and not being served on plaintiff is not a new or different fact, circumstance or law within the meaning of §1008 and thus, it is not a proper basis for this motion for reconsideration. Whether or not the underlying dismissal was “signed by a judge as required by CCP §581d” and/or “was served on plaintiff” were facts or circumstances which existed at the time plaintiff filed the earlier motion to set aside on 7/14/2025 and certainly existed at the time the earlier motion was heard on 11/6/2025.

Thus, regardless of their substantive significance if any, both of these alleged facts or circumstances could certainly have been presented to the Court before the 11/6/2025 hearing and consequently, they do not constitute any truly “new or different” facts or circumstances necessary to obtain reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM pursuant to §1008(a). Additionally, this contention does not support reconsideration insofar as this argument could with reasonable diligence have been presented by plaintiff in connection with the prior motion to set aside and plaintiff has failed to proffer any satisfactory justification for failing to do so prior to the 11/6/2025 hearing on that earlier motion.

Thus, this ground remains insufficient to invoke this Court’s limited jurisdiction for reconsideration but even if plaintiff’s argument were reconsidered here, it would not lead to a different determination than that set forth in the 11/10/2025 ROSM which addressed the merits of plaintiff’s then-pending motion to set aside.

The second ground advanced in the “supplemental” points & authorities (i.e., that the 11/10/2025 ROSM resulted from the Court’s misinterpretation or misapplication of relevant law and/or findings not supported by the relevant evidence) is not a valid basis on which to obtain reconsideration (see, e.g., Gilberd, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500) but even if it were, this Court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s arguments in this regard are sufficient to reach a result different from that set forth in the 11/10/2025 ROSM.

The final ground cited in the “supplemental” points & authorities relating to the Court’s subsequent 1/28/2026 ex parte order advancing the hearing date on this motion for reconsideration is not a valid justification for reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM because

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

this 1/28/2026 ex parte order has no substantive bearing on the disposition of plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside dismissal and because the validity of this 1/28/2026 ex parte order is the subject of plaintiff’s concurrent motion to vacate.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the “supplemental” points & authorities which plaintiff filed on 3/9/2026 do not proffer any valid basis on which to obtain reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM denying plaintiff’s prior motion to set aside.

Amended Motion Filed on 4/1/2026. Based on these amended papers (which would effectively supersede the prior papers), plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM on the following purported grounds:

1. The dismissal is void because it was never signed by a judge as required by CCP [sic] §581d; 2. The dismissal was based on filings never properly served on plaintiff; 3. The 11/10/2025 ROSM is void because it relied on Defendant’s unauthenticated, facially invalid evidence, applied the wrong legal standard for identity verification, and relied on improperly served filings; and 4. The Court failed to investigate Defendant’s evidence before accepting it. (Am. Mot., p.1:16-19.)

As will now be shown, none of these four grounds constitutes a valid basis for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a). The first two grounds cited in the Amended Motion are substantively identical to not only the third ground identified in the initial moving papers filed on 11/12/2025 but also the first ground cited in the “supplemental” points & authorities filed on 3/9/2026 and thus, these fail to justify reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM for the reasons discussed above. The latter two grounds identified in the Amended Motion are substantively identical to not only the second and fourth grounds identified in the initial moving papers filed on 11/12/2025 but also the second ground advanced in the “supplemental” points & authorities filed on 3/9/2026 and therefore, these are insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM for the reasons discussed above.

In the end, plaintiff has here failed to identify any new or different facts, circumstances, or law sufficient to invoke the Court’s limited jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) to reconsider the 11/10/2025 ROSM and thus, the present motion must be denied. (See, e.g., Gilberd, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 1500 [court “acts in excess of jurisdiction” when it grants reconsideration not based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law].) Additionally, even assuming arguendo that this motion had been properly premised on truly new or different facts, circumstances, or law within the meaning of §1008(a) (which it has not been), plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that such new or different facts, circumstances, or law could not with reasonable diligence have been presented to the Court at or before the 11/6/2025 hearing on the earlier motion to set aside dismissal, nor has plaintiff provided an adequate justification for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 16D

failing to do so. As a result, reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM is not proper under §1008(a). Finally, even if the Court were to consider here those allegedly new or different facts and circumstances discussed in plaintiff’s various papers filed in support of this motion, this Court does not find sufficient justification to alter its 11/10/2025 ROSM on the earlier motion to set aside dismissal.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s current motion for reconsideration is DENIED and therefore, plaintiff’s request for any and all other related relief is likewise DENIED in its entirety.

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.)