Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV04088, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04088    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2023, Defendant Double A Trucking Repair Corp. (Defendant) filed a motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant also filed a motion to Deem Admitted their Requests for Admissions. At that time, Defendant, a corporation, was represented by counsel.

On September 7, 2023, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney form, purporting to replace its former counsel with itself in pro per. The substitution was consented to by “Cheryl Zhang on behalf of Double A Trucking Repair Company” as the party and new attorney.  

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Eva Marie Hube and Christopher Gene Rolls (Plaintiffs) filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

A corporation has the capacity to be sued, but cannot represent themselves in propria persona, like natural persons. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) It also cannot represent itself thought a corporate officer, director, or other employee who is not an attorney. (Id.) A corporation must be represented by licensed counsel in court proceedings. (Id.)

In CLD Construction, Inc., a trial court granted a motion to strike a corporation’s complaint, without leave to amend, because it was filed in pro per. The action was then dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 1145.) The Court of Appeal reversed, finding it was “more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court.” (Id. at 1149.) The court emphasized however that this flexible rule “in no way impairs the court’s ability to assure that trained legal professionals participate in the presentation of the corporation’s case.” (Id. at 1150.)

DISCUSSION

Here, the motions to compel were filed when Defendant was represented by counsel. However, Plaintiff argues that Cheryl Zhang, who subsequently signed the substitution of counsel form, is not an attorney. (Opposition at pg. 4.) No further substitution of counsel form has been filed and Defendant cannot appear in pro per at the hearing on these motions. Moreover, no reply brief has been filed.

Accordingly, the Court takes the motions off calendar without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motions if properly represented by counsel.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motions to compel are off calendar without prejudice. If Defendant, properly represented by counsel, seeks to file the motions again, Defendant must file and serve each motion separately.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order.