Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00010804-CL-BC-NC, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00010804-CL-BC-NC RGH 2 LLC VS BRUNN CONSULTING GROUP [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 04/28/2023

Plaintiff RGH 2, LLC ('Plaintiff')'s motion to strike Defendant Brunn Consulting Group dba Gamtec Labs, Inc. ('Defendant')'s Answer is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 436 provides that '[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, 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. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.' Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 436(a)-(b). In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. See Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6. 'In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.' Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255. The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 437(a).

The court construes Defendant's lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, it is well-settled law that 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 licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.' CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1141, 1145. See also Himmel v. City Council (1959) 169 Cal. App. 2d 97, 100.

On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant for damages arising from an alleged breach of a written lease agreement. See ROA No. 1. On April 11, 2023, Defendant, through its Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Brunn, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

See ROA No. 8. However, because Defendant is a corporate entity that is not represented by counsel, its Answer, as prepared and filed by Mr. Brunn, is not drawn in conformity with California law and is therefore subject to a motion to strike.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and strikes Defendant's Answer. The court advises Defendant that it should secure the assistance of counsel if it wishes to proceed in this action and avoid default.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 29, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of September 29, 2023.

If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968430 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RGH 2 LLC VS BRUNN CONSULTING GROUP [IMAGED]  37-2023-00010804-CL-BC-NC this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968430