Motion to Seal Court Records
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR C61 HON. JENNIFER M. MCCARTNEY
Date: 6/5/2026 Courtroom Rules and Notices
The Court will continue to upload tentative rulings as they are completed. Please be sure to keep checking until 8:30 AM on the day of your hearing.
Written responses, oppositions, or filings that are filed later than 12:15 PM the day before the hearing on the motion will go on second call by the Court for the Court to have an opportunity to review any lastminute filings. If a party files a written response, opposition, or any filing after 12:15 PM on the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the court's afternoon calendar the day of the hearing.
Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5261 – both counsel need to state they are submitting on the tentative. Please do not call the Department unless all parties submit to the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.
Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The Court also might make a different order at the hearing. (Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)
# Case Name Tentative 10 30-2026-01542413 The Court has read and considered the Defendant, Stephanie Rutledge’s, Christopher Paul Motion to Seal Court Records (ROA 56). Teague as Trustee of the Teague Family The Court take Judicial Notice of the Defendant’s Ex Parte Application Trust dated August 5, Motion to Set Aside Default (ROA 25), 3/13/2026 Minute Order (ROA 32), 2010 as restated on Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution of Judgment (ROA 34), 3/17/2026 August 17, 2018 vs. Minute Order (ROA 36), Motion to Vacate (ROA 40), 5/1/2026 Minute Order Rutledge (ROA 50) and Judgment – Unlawful Detainer (ROA 19).
In Ms. Rutledge’s original Ex Parte Application (ROA 25), she alleged that she did not have notice of the eviction proceedings until the Sheriff’s Department posted the lockout notice and that she was never served with the summons and complaint. On March 13, 2026, the Court denied Ms. Rutledge’s Ex Parte because she failed to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code section 647 of proper service of the summons and complaint. In Ms. Rutledge’s Motion to Vacate (ROA 40), she stated that she did receive the summons and complaint but “did not understand their legal significance or the requirement to file a formal written response within a specified time period.” (#3 of Declaration of Stephanie Rutledge.)
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?”
AB2819 was created to “strike a balance between the interests of protecting the credit records of innocent tenants and allowing landlords and others sufficient access to court records.” (AB 2819 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis) California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550(d) allows the Court to seal a person’s record if the expressly finds: “(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”
Ms. Rutledge fails to establish that her circumstances are materially distinguishable from those commonly attendant to unlawful detainer proceedings. Inherent in an unlawful detainer judgment is a public record of the action, which prospective landlords may consider when evaluating rental applicants. The possibility that an eviction record could adversely affect future housing opportunities is not unique to Ms. Rutledge and, standing alone, does not constitute an overriding interest sufficient to justify sealing under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).
Accordingly, Ms. Rutledge has not demonstrated that her case presents the exceptional circumstances required to overcome the public's right of access to court records.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Seal.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
11 30-2026-01553191 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate/Set Mickle & Lucky Aside Judgment (ROA 32). Estates LLC vs. Lopez The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing/Electronic Service (ROA 27), 5/26/2026 Minute Order (ROA 28), and Judgment – Unlawful Detainer (ROA 29).
Ms. Lopez states in her Motion that she experienced unexpected transportation delays on the day of the hearing, May 26, 2026, and that she arrived at the courthouse as quickly as possible. The record reflects that her matter was not called until 10:56 a.m. on May 26, 2026. However, there is no indication that Ms. Lopez contacted the courtroom or otherwise attempted to notify the Court of her delay.
Additionally, Ms. Lopez does not identify the nature of the alleged transportation issues or provide any documentation or other evidence to substantiate her claim. The Court further notes that Ms. Lopez appeared at the courthouse the following day, May 27, 2026, to file her Motion to Vacate.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Default.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with the lockout forthwith.