| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Order to show cause and affidavit for contempt
before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative 1. DMC Charter Service, LLC vs. Namdar 2024-01399364
On calendar is the continued hearing on the order to show cause and affidavit for contempt the court signed and issued on January 5, 2026, ordering defendant and judgment debtor Bjian Namdar (Debtor) to appear in court and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for willfully failing to comply with the court’s order. Specifically, the order to show cause was issued on the application of plaintiffs and judgment creditors DMC Charter Service, LLC and DeMarre Carroll (collectively, Creditors) based on Debtor’s alleged willful failure to comply with the court’s May 15, 2025 order for Debtor to respond to Creditors’ request for production of documents and to produce all responsive documents.
The court has conducted several hearings on Creditor’s request for an OSC and then on the OSC itself. Most recently, on March 26, 2026, the court continued the hearing to today’s date because Creditors had not personally served the OSC and all supporting documents on Debtor as required to proceed and confer jurisdiction over Debtor. (Koehler v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169;
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
At the March 26, 2026 hearing, the court ordered Creditors to personally serve Debtor and file proof of service no later than May 6, 2026. Proof of service, however, was not filed until May 8, 2026. All parties are ordered to appear for the hearing to discuss how to proceed in this matter.
2. Rose vs. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company 2026-01550977 OFF CALENDAR pursuant to notice filed on April 23, 2026
3. City of Placentia vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of H. Michael Ford, Deceased, and Lynn D. Ford, Deceased 2025-01502207
Before the court is the continued hearing on a petition for order to abate substandard building and appointment of a receiver filed by petitioner City of Placentia (Petitioner) against respondent Barry Rae, Solely in his Capacity as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Lynn D. Ford (Respondent).
On October 22, 2025, the parties filed a Compliance Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Receivership Petition, which was approved by the court (Stipulated Order). Pursuant to the Stipulated Order, Respondent agreed to rehabilitate the subject property and bring it into full compliance, and the parties agreed to continue the hearing on the petition. (ROA 25.)
When the court initially reviewed this file for today’s hearing, neither party had submitted any additional documents after the Stipulated Order. Late in the afternoon on May 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a declaration by one of its Code Enforcement Officers acknowledging Respondent has pulled various permits for the property, submitting plans for review, performed substantial work on the property, and requested various inspections. The Code Enforcement Officer, however, further states the work is not complete and there recently has been little or no work performed. The declaration was not brought to the court’s attention until late in the afternoon on May 12, 2026, and Respondent was not provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to the newly filed declaration.
Based on the foregoing, the court CONTINUES the hearing on the petition to THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23. Petitioner shall file and serve any supplemental brief or declarations updating the court on or before July 10, 2026. Respondent shall file