Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV14893, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14893    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Michael E. McCullough, Trustee of the Michael E. McCullough and Mary Beth Herbener Family Trust of April 9, 2009 (McCullough) is the owner of real property located at 111 No. Larchmont Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90004. Defendant DMH Aesthetics, LLC and Does 1-100 inclusive (DMH Aesthetics) entered into a commercial lease agreement with McCullough. (Compl. Exh. 1) On May 7, 2024, McCullough served DMH Aesthetics with a Commercial 15-Day Notice to Pay or Quit. (Compl. Exh. 2)

McCullough filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer on June 13, 2024. (Compl. at p.1.) McCullough requests past-due rent of $27,176.00, reasonable attorney fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages in the amount of $276.60 per day from May 1, 2024.

The Court held a trial setting conference on July 27, 2024 and was informed that possession was still at issue and a trial was sought as soon as reasonably possible. The Court set trial on August 26, 2024. DMH Aesthetics, LLC was represented at the trial setting conference by an attorney, although the Court notes that no notice of limited scope or other document confirming representation was filed with the Court.

DMH Aesthetics purportedly filed an Answer in propria persona on August 1, 2024, alleging various affirmative defenses.

On August 7, 2024, McCullough moved to Strike DMH Aesthetics’ Answer, with the hearing initially set for September 4, 2024.

The same day, McCullough filed an ex parte application to advance and shorten time so that the Court could o hear the motion before the August 26 trial date. The Court granted the ex parte on August 9, 2024, and advanced the hearing for the motion to strike to August 20, 2024.

As of noon on August 19, 2024, when this tentative was posted, DMH Aesthetics has not filed any opposition to the motion to strike.

Motion to Strike

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)

In turn, the court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subds. (a), (b).)

Analysis

McCullough moves to strike DMH Aesthetics’ Answer pursuant to long established precedent that corporate entities may not represent themselves without an attorney.

“[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licenses counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 citing Caressa Camille, Inc. v Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101-1103). “Several rationales lie behind the rule. First, a corporation, as an artificial entity created by law, can only act in its affairs through its natural person agents and representatives…Second, the rule furthers the efficient administration of justice by assuring that qualified professionals, who, as officers of the court are subject to its control and to professional rules of conduct, present the corporation’s case and aid the court in resolution of the issues. [Citation.] Third, the rule helps maintain the distinction between the corporation and its shareholders, directors, and officers.” (Id. at 1146.)

The California Court of Appeals found that because “an unincorporated association resembles a corporation more than it does an individual,” this principle also applies to unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 579.)

There is no dispute that DMH Aesthetics is a limited liability company or that such entities cannot represent themselves before the court. Because DMH Aesthetics cannot represent itself in court, its Answer is not “drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California,” as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b), and the Court must strike the Answer in its entirety.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant.