Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV28606, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court, sua sponte, strikes Defendant Forty General Building Inc.’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, and enters default against Defendant Forty General Building Inc.

Plaintiff Itria Ventures, LLC (“Itria”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed to strike pro per Defendant Forty General Building Inc.’s (“Forty General”) (“Defendant”) answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that a corporation may not appear in pro per. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.) Plaintiff also moves this Court for an entry of Default against Defendant. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.)

Plaintiff filed its operative Complaint on November 22, 2023, against Forty General, Jose Cuarenta Jimenez (“Jimenez”), and Jesus Edgar Cuarenta (“Cuarenta”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging four causes of action: (1) appointment of receiver; (2) preliminary injunction; (3) breach of written contract; and (4) breach of written guaranties. On December 20, 2023, Defendants filed their answer in pro per. To date, no attorneys purport to represent Defendants. (See Decl. of King Richards ¶8.)

On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

C.C.P. §436 provides that the Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to C.C.P. §435, or at any time within its discretion and upon terms it deems proper, “[s]trike 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.” (C.C.P. §436(b).)

Plaintiff moves to strike Forty General’s answer on the basis that a corporation may not appear in pro per. (Motion Memo, pg. 4; see Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724.)

Plaintiff argues a corporation cannot represent itself in a California court in pro per. (See Merco Construction Engineers, Inc., 21 Cal.3d at pg. 730.) However, a motion to strike an answer must be filed within 10 days after the answer is served. (C.C.P. §§430.40(b), 435(b)(1).) Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely pursuant to C.C.P. §§430.40(b), 435(b)(1).

However, pursuant to C.C.P. §436(b), this Court may “[s]trike 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.”

Here, Forty General is not currently represented by counsel. A corporation cannot represent itself in a California court, either in pro per or through an agent who is not an attorney. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§6125 et seq.; see Merco Construction Engineers, Inc., 21 Cal.3d at pg. 729.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. This Court, sua sponte, strikes Forty General’s answer as not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.

If a defendant fails to answer after a motion to strike its answer is granted, it is as if the defendant failed to answer. (C.C.P. §586(a)(7).) If a defendant fails to answer the complaint, a court shall enter the default of the defendant. (C.C.P. §585(a).)

A court has the discretion to enter a corporation’s default for nonappearance if that corporation is without representation of a licensed attorney. (See Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp 29, 32.)

Here, Forty General is unable to take any action in this matter, including responding to the complaint, because they are not represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice before this Court.

The Court, sua sponte, Strikes Forty General’s Answer and enters default against Forty General.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court