motion of petitioner to enter omitted order (form NC-130)
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. MacGregor- Name Change 2025-01480873 Before the court is the motion of petitioner Alexander Michael MacGregor (Petitioner) to enter omitted order (form NC-130). The motion is DENIED and the court sets an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING for August 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in Department C23, as to why the order previously issued on August 21, 2025, should not be stricken and a new order issued that does not include the language added at section 14 but otherwise grants the original petition.
Given the file in this matter is sealed, the court’s posted tentative ruling will not go into detail on the basis for the court’s tentative ruling, but the ruling is as set forth above because no authority has been presented that would authorize the issuance of two separate orders that would authorize two separate legal identities for the same person. The court acknowledges the stated purpose for the request, but the court has not been convinced the request is one that can be legally granted.
2. Osher Investments, LLC vs. Hodson 2024-01404420 Before the court is the motion of plaintiff and judgment creditor Osher Investments, LLC (Osher) to compel defendant and judgment debtor William “Bill” Hodson (Hodson) to respond to Osher’s request for production of documents (set one). No Opposition has been received
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?”