Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV06550, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06550    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 14

(1)       OSC re: Dismissal

            On February 16, 2023, Scott R. Carpenter and Edward J. Farrell of Cummins & White LLP were relieved as counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Vast. Proof of service of the order relieving them was filed on March 2, 2023.

            On April 11, 2023, Jeffrey M. Singletary and Justin F. Mello of Snell & Wilmer LLP were relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Proof of service of the order relieving them was filed on April 13, 2023.

            No counsel has substituted in or appeared on behalf of either Plaintiff or Defendant Vast in the intervening time.

            Corporate parties are required to have counsel to prosecute cases in California courts. CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4^th 1141. Both Plaintiff and Defendant Vast have been without counsel now for four months. Defendant Vast does have counsel in the related case, who has been appearing in that case only. But Plaintiff has made no effort to appear or communicate with this court in any fashion. Under these circumstances, the court has the inherent authority to dismiss Plaintiff’s case. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128(a)(4)&(8), 581(m), and 583.150.

            Plaintiff’s FAC is DISMISSED, without prejudice.

            The court sets an OSC re: dismissal of the cross-complaint filed by Defendant Vast for October 20, 2023.

            The court also sets an OSC re: striking the answer and entering default of Cross-Defendant Vast for October 20, 2023.

(2)-(3) Motions to Compel

            Cross-Complainant Mouren-Laurens now moves this court for orders compelling Cross-Defendant Vast to make further responses to his Form and Special Interrogatories, as well as his Requests for Production, through legal counsel.

Decision

            The motion is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR.

Discussion

            The discovery at issue was served on January 13, 2023. Responses were due on March 1, 2023. On February 27, 2023, a corporate representative from Cross-Defendant Vast served responses. That representative is not a member of the California bar.

            The discovery responses served by the corporate representative are invalid. See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4^th 1141. But this court has no power to compel corporations to hire counsel, let alone to serve responses through counsel they do not have. The remedy for this situation is a motion to strike Cross-Defendant Vast’s answer and enter their default. The court has already set an OSC for that very purpose.