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

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Vacate Void Order And For Related Relief 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:

*** 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 Yakovlev’s motion to vacate as void the Court’s 1/28/2026 ex parte order advancing the hearing on plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration to 4/28/2026 “and for related 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.

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.

On 7/14/2025, plaintiff filed a motion for “an order setting aside the dismissal entered in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Vacate Void Order And For Related Relief in Department 16D

this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and the Court’s inherent equitable authority but plaintiff’s motion was ultimately denied by this Court’s Ruling on Submitted Matter (“ROSM”) dated 11/10/2025. Two days later on 11/12/2025, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the 11/10/2025 ROSM but noticed it for hearing more than one year later on 1/7/2027 even though many earlier hearing dates were available in this department. On 1/26/2026, defendant filed an application for an ex parte order to advance the 1/7/2027 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to an earlier date and on 1/28/2026, this Court issued an order advancing the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to 4/28/2026.

Plaintiff now moves to vacate the Court’s 1/28/2026 on the ground it is “void because it was obtained through unauthorized electronic service without Plaintiff’s consent, ineffective notice that was a Google Voice voicemail not received, complete foreclosure from the adversarial process due to Sacramento County’s on the papers ex parte procedure, and no showing of emergency” and because “[t]he Court’s asymmetrical treatment of ex parte applications — denying Plaintiff’s ex parte on September 30, 2025 for procedural deficiencies while granting Defendant’s ex parte on January 28, 2026 despite more serious deficiencies — violates due process.” (4/1/2026 Am. Not. of Mot., p.1:14-21.)

Discussion

Plaintiff Yakovlev’s motion to vacate the Court’s 1/28/2026 ex parte order advancing the hearing on plaintiff’s own pending motion for reconsideration to 4/28/2026 on the grounds that the 1/28/2026 order is “void” is denied because this Court has under Code of Civil Procedure §128(a) and §187 inherent authority to manage and control its own docket to provide for the orderly administration of proceedings. (See also, Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.

Therefore, notwithstanding any of the alleged defects which plaintiff claims with respect to defendant’s 1/26/2026 ex parte application, this Court had as of 1/28/2026 (and still has) inherent authority to manage and control those matters on its docket in order to facilitate the orderly administration of proceedings. This Court determined on 1/28/2026 (and still finds) that purposefully delaying the hearing on plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration until 1/7/2027 is unequivocally unreasonable under the circumstances and will undermine the orderly administration of proceedings.

Notably, plaintiff has not established, and this Court does not find, the existence of any valid justification for delaying the resolution of plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration for well over one year after its filing on 11/12/2025. There can be no dispute that all courts of this state must strive for the prompt determination of all matters presented to them for resolution (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §583.110 et seq. [provisions re: delay in prosecution]; see

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012529: YAKOVLEV vs AMAZON.COM 04/28/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other To Vacate Void Order And For Related Relief in Department 16D

also, People v. Whitus (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 8-9) and thus, this Court was within its inherent authority to advance to a more reasonable date the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

In light of the foregoing, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the 1/28/2026 ex parte order is actually void under existing California law and consequently, the Court declines not only to vacate the 1/28/2026 ex parte order but also to grant any of the “related relief” sought by plaintiff via this motion.

Discussion

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff Yakovlev’s current motion to vacate the Court’s 1/28/2026 ex parte order “and for related relief” is DENIED in its entirety.

Defendant to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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