YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Unauthorized and Harassing Pleadings in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Ale Yakovlev’s (“Plaintiff”) “Notice of Motion and Second Amended Motion to Strike Unauthorized and Harassing Pleadings Pursuant to CCP § 436” is UNOPPOSED and DENIED.

Plaintiff moves to strike the following:

1. Defendant in pro per Tatiana Novoselova’s (“Defendant”) “Preliminary Answer – Notice of Invalid Identity” (filed 11/17/2025) in its entirety; and 2. The “Preliminary Answer / Notice of Invalid Identity” section embedded within Defendant’s “General Denial” (filed 11/13/2025).

In connection with this motion, Plaintiff filed multiple documents on November 19, 2025; February 18, 2026; and March 16, 2026. Plaintiff’s numerous and repeated filings made related to the same motion has created confusion and made it difficult for the Court to

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Unauthorized and Harassing Pleadings in Department 16C

decipher which documents pertain to this instant motion. Filing motions, amended motions, and second amended motions is discouraged by the Court for this reason.

In ruling on this motion, the Court has considered the documents filed on March 16, 2026, except for the 19-page “Consolidated Statement of Facts” as there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure allowing for such a filing.

Turning to the merits of the motion, under section 436, the court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” as well as “all or part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 436, subds. (a) and (b).) A motion to strike under Civil Procedure Code sections 435 and 436 is limited to “pleadings.” A “pleading” is defined as a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Civ. Proc. Code § 435(a)(2).)

Plaintiff’s asserts that Defendant’s “Preliminary Answer – Notice of Invalid Identity” (filed 11/17/2025) should be stricken because it is a “pleading” that is not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state.

Defendant’s November 17, 2025, filing appears to be a general correspondence directed to the Court whereby Defendant asks the Court to require “formal verification of the Plaintiff’s legal identity and a valid mailing address” and that if such verification cannot be provided, she asks that the case be dismissed or stayed. She also avers that she denies all of the allegations in the Complaint and reserves the right to submit a full and substantive Answer if and when Plaintiff’s identity is properly verified.

This document does not fall within the statutory definition of “pleading” and therefore the motion to strike as to this document is DENIED.

Plaintiff also asks that the “Preliminary Answer / Notice of Invalid Identity” part of Defendant’s General Denial be struck. There is no “Preliminary Answer / Notice of Invalid Identity” section of the General Denial and Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, which states:

“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.”

Plaintiff’s motion does not quote the full portion sought to be stricken, nor does it cite to the entire paragraph(s) to be stricken. Therefore, the motion to strike a portion of the General Denial is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Unauthorized and Harassing Pleadings in Department 16C

Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Unauthorized and Harassing Pleadings in Department 16C

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