Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff in pro per Ale Yakovlevs (Plaintiff) motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (2AC) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Amended Motion on April 22, 2026, wherein Plaintiff makes clear that the moving papers filed on April 9, 2026, are superseded by the papers filed on April 22, 2026, in connection with this motion.
Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant in pro per Tatiana Novosoleva (Defendant) on April 9, 2025. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (1AC) on July 17, 2025.
This is Plaintiffs fourth attempt to obtain leave of court to file a 2AC. Plaintiffs first motion was dropped without prejudice due to Plaintiff combining multiple forms of relief and orders from the Court into one motion. Plaintiffs second and third motions were denied without prejudice due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.
Plaintiff seeks leave to:
(1) add a cause of action for abuse of process; (2) to clarify existing claims based on newly discovered facts, including weaponized service of process at 7:30 a.m. using confidential caregiver- obtained gate access information, deliberate misgendering in court filings, false statements that Plaintiff likes old women, false alias allegations, threat to report Plaintiff to authorities to terminate Plaintiffs disability benefits, and complete discovery non-compliance with no responses to any discovery served over eight months ago (Motion at 2:25-3:2); and (3) include allegations regarding two prior fraudulent IHSS providers, Valerie Bridges and SIROOS SAIFI, who exploited Plaintiff using the same pattern of
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
conduct: gaining trust, stealing money, demanding to move people into Plaintiffs housing, escalating to threats or violence when refused, misgendering Plaintiff, and facing no consequences from IHSS. (Motion at 3:8-11.)
Plaintiff asserts no prejudice will be suffered because this case is in the early stages of discovery, no trial date has been set, the new cause of action arises from Defendants own litigation conduct, and the pattern evidence against Bridges and Saifi are offered as context, not new claims against Defendant.
It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Super. Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Moreover, Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. The policy of great liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding has been declared by our courts. (Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.)
Having received no opposition, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may file and serve the proposed 2AC no later than June 12, 2026.
Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 2AC, or 35 days if served by mail.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other 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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV013314: YAKOVLEV vs NOVOSELOVA 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C
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 Courts 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 the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.