Order to show cause re: striking prior order
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 Case Number Tentative
1. MacGregor- Name Change 2025-01480873 Before the court is the hearing on the order to show cause as to why the court should not strike its August 21, 2025 order and enter a new order that does not include the language added at section 14. The court is inclined to strike the original order and issue a new one.
In response to the order to show cause, the court has received and reviewed petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, petitioner’s supplemental declaration, petitioner’s request for judicial notice, petitioner’s declaration in support of the request for judicial notice, proposed NC-130, and proposed NC-330. Nothing the petitioner has presented has convinced the court it is appropriate to issue both an NC-130 and an NC- 330 in this case. An NC-330 form without the language that was previously inserted is the appropriate form in this case.
The court, however, agrees it is appropriate to enter a new order nunc pro tunc as of the date the original order was entered. Finally, the court agrees the order does not affect petitioner’s common law right to change petitioner’s name or use an alternative name. The court, however, does not see the need or appropriateness of the attachment petitioner proposes. The NC-330 form already includes both names and the third is just a variation.
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?”
Given the file in this matter is sealed, the court’s posted tentative ruling will not go into any further detail as to the basis for the foregoing, but is happy to discuss the matter further petitioner at the hearing.
2. In RE: Martinez 2025-01511372 Before the court is the hearing on the order to show cause as to why the court should not reconsider its February 26, 2026 ruling granting the first amended verified petition for approval for transfer of structured settlement payment rights by and between payee and real party in interest Luis Martinez (Payee) and petitioner CBC Settlement Fundings, LLC (Petitioner). The court set this order to show cause because, in connection with Petitioner submitting a proposed order granting the first amended petition, it came to light that Petitioner served the incorrect annuity owner and incorrect annuity issuer.
The court has reviewed the declaration of counsel (ROA 43) Petitioner submitted in response to the order to show cause as well as the notice of hearing. The court continues to have concerns regarding this matter and is inclined to vacate its prior ruling without prejudice to Petitioner filing and serving another amended petition that provides current information and is properly served on all necessary parties.
First, since discovering the error, Petitioner represents it has served all documents on the proper annuity owner and issuer—i.e., Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. and Pacific Life & Annuity Company. Petitioner, however, has not served any of the documents on Payee and Payee has not been given notice of today’s hearing.
Second, although Petitioner represents the proper annuity owner and issuer have no objection, that representation is hearsay.
Finally, nearly a year has elapsed since Payee signed the contract, and it is not clear interest rates and the related calculations have not changed during that period due to changes in the market. Similarly, nothing is presented to show Payee’s circumstances have not changed. The first amended petition and the court’s decision to grant it was based in part on Payee’s dire need to bring his rent current. Given several months have elapsed since then, it is not clear the name need and justification exist.
3. VFS, LLC vs. AM Bakersfield, LLC Before the court is the order to show cause why an order for sale of dwelling should not issue relating to property located at 3111 Gardenia Lane, Yorba Linda, California 92886 and owned by judgment debtor Arpit Patel (Debtor)