Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV24930, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24930    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

WHITNEY RANAE BALL,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

WHEELS LABS, INC., ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 20STCV24930

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 14, 2023

 

Defendant Wheels Labs, Inc. dba Wheels Technologies, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) attorney of record, Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP (“Counsel”), seeks to be relieved as counsel, contending that Defendant has failed to pay Counsel’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending this matter.  Counsel asserts that Defendant’s failure to pay has created a conflict of interest, as Defendant’s failure to pay will result in Counsel having to pursue Defendant for the outstanding balance.  Counsel declares it served the moving papers on Defendant via mail at Defendant’s last known address.  Counsel has filed proof of service on Plaintiff and on Defendant. 

 

The motion is unopposed and granted; the ruling is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order.  The Court notes the next scheduled matter is an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal set for the same time as this hearing, which will be continued for approximately 60 days.  Further, no trial date is set in this action, as Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of entire case on August 9, 2022.  Therefore, there is sufficient time for Defendant to seek other counsel.  Defendant is encouraged to seek new counsel expeditiously to protect Defendant’s interests in this matter. 

 

In California, a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.  (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.)  Answering a complaint on behalf of a corporation constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125; Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 730; Rogers v. Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1314, 1318, 243 Cal. Rptr. 530.)  A corporation that attempts to appear in court without an attorney is entitled to “a reasonable time to secure counsel.”  (CLD Construction v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1141, 1148.)  However, if after a reasonable time the corporation does not retain counsel, the court may enter a default judgment against the corporation.  (Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp. 29, 32, 199 Cal. Rptr. 771; see also CLD Construction v. City of San Ramon, supra, 120 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1149, [Holding that the court may “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.”].)  Defendant, and any agents thereof, are put on notice that Defendant must retain counsel within a reasonable time or risk potential adverse rulings and judgment.  Defendant is ordered to obtain counsel within 60 days or show cause why it has not done so.

 

Counsel is ordered to give notice.  An OSC re: Dismissal in light of settlement and an OSC re: failure to obtain counsel is set for _______.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 14th day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court