Christopher Paul Teague as Trustee of the Teague Family Trust dated August 5, 2010 as restated on August 17, 2018 vs. Rutledge

6 30-2026-01542413 The Court has read and considered the Defendant Stephanie Martin Christopher Paul Rutledge’s Notice of Motion to Set Aside the June 29, 2026 Default Money Teague as Trustee of Judgment (ROA 70), Declaration in Support (ROA 73), and Reply to Motion the Teague Family (ROA 75). Trust dated August 5, 2010 as restated on The Defendant failed to provide notice and service of the Motion pursuant to August 17, 2018 vs. California Code of Civil Procedure § 1005 on the Plaintiff. No declaration of Rutledge service or proof of service is attached to the Motion to Vacate, Declaration In support or Reply to Motion. The Court of Appeal held that a litigant in propria persona is subject to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney. (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App. 3d 93, 98.)

The Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside without prejudice due to lack of proper notice and service of the Motion.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 7 30-2026-01577309 Pending – check back later Yang vs. Byun 8 30-2026-01579273 Gelt Oasis Exchange, LLC vs. Clark 9 30-2026-01578531 The Court has read and considered the Motion for Stay of Execution of Sanderson J. Ray Judgment Pending Appeal by Randal H. Brown II (ROA 40). Apartments Property, LLC vs. Wright The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Complaint (ROA 2), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 21), 8/18/2026 Minute Order (ROA 30), Judgment- Unlawful Detainer (ROA 25), Writ of Possession (ROA 32), Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal (ROA 35), and 8/21/2026 Minute Order (ROA 38).

ROA 40 is the same request as ROA 35, except that Mr. Brown crossed out the “ex parte” language before resubmitting it as ROA 40. The Court has already ruled on the substance of the request in the Minute Order of 8/21/2026.

As to ROA 40, Mr. Brown failed to provide notice and service of the Motions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 on opposing counsel. No declaration of service or proof of service is attached.

A person appearing in propria persona does not provide a basis for special treatment under the law; “such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.” (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App. 4th 1200, 1210.) Additionally, the Court of Appeal held that a litigant in propria persona is subject to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney. (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App. 3d 93, 98.)

The Court DENIES Mr. Brown’s Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal.