Hedrington v. Woolman

(37) Tentative Ruling

Re: Hedrington v. Woolman Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01717

Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: By Plaintiff Orlonzo Hedrington to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment and for Reconsideration

Tentative Ruling:

To deny.

Explanation:

Plaintiff has filed copious documents since nearly the inception of this case seeking to either vacate a judgment, set aside an order, or reconsider an order. Frequently plaintiff files a proof of service well after filing the corresponding request, if at all. As many of the requests are similar in nature and in title, the court cannot readily discern whether defendants received proper notice as to this hearing.

Similarly, plaintiff frequently indicates either incorrect hearing dates in the caption of his motions or files motions with no hearing scheduled. As such, the court cannot readily discern whether it has reviewed all of plaintiff’s intended moving papers for this hearing.

On February 23, 2026, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Reconsideration Motion Under CCP & 1008 Notice to Motion Vacate a Void Judgment CCP & 473 (D)”. The caption indicates a hearing date of July 14, 2026. The court continued the July 14, 2026 hearings to August 25, 2026. It is unclear from this document what relief plaintiff seeks. The document begins by referencing an order, without specifying which order, wherein the court ordered plaintiff to serve and file a proof of service of opposition on the defendants.

In carefully reviewing the court’s own records, it is apparent this is a reference to an October 8, 2025 ruling continuing defendant’s special motion to strike. The motion was continued because plaintiff had filed, but not served, an opposition to the motion. Thus, the court continued the matter to allow for plaintiff to perfect service and gave defendant an opportunity to reply. All that was afforded, to both parties, by this, was assurance of a full opportunity to be heard on the merits.

The remainder of the document filed February 23, 2026 appears to challenge a judgment entered in 2014. While the judgment at issue is not further identified, this matter was not initiated until 2025. Thus, plaintiff appears to challenge a judgment in a different matter than this one. As the court has previously stated, the court will not provide relief for a judgment obtained in a different matter. (Minute Order, August 18, 2026.)

On June 30, 2026, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Renewed Application for Expert Witnesses and Opposition to Anti-Slapped Jurisdictional Errors”. This too had a hearing date of July 14, 2026 indicated in the caption. Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure 13

section 410.70 which articulates that the court has jurisdiction to proceed against defendants who have been served on a contract. It is unclear what plaintiff intends by citing this code section. Plaintiff also asserts he requires immediate expert disclosure so he can show a 2014 proof of service was falsified. Again, this matter did not exist in 2014.

To the extent that plaintiff is challenging this court’s ultimate ruling on November 5, 2025, granting defendant Woolman’s special motion to strike, the court has already addressed plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, vacate judgment, and set aside on July 23, 2026 for this same issue. (Minute Order, July 23, 2026.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on August 24, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

14