Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01253037, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Cliff Yang and Mindvia LLC filed a document entitled “MOTION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF CAPTION”. 

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in propria persona against Defendant South Coast Springs Home owners Association.  (Register of Action [“ROA”] 1.)  The Complaint alleges that Mindvia LLC is a corporation qualified to do business in California.  (Complaint, at page 1 of 3, ¶ 3.a(1).)  Although it has capacity to sue and defend, a corporation is not a natural person, and therefore cannot appear in an action in propria persona. It can appear only through counsel. (Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.)  Thus, Mindvia LLC should not have appeared in this action through the Complaint on its own without counsel.

In any event, it appears that Plaintiffs seek to have Mindvia LLC dismissed from the action. The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)  Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff Mindvia LLC from this action.  

Finally, the Court reminds the parties that litigants who choose to represent themselves must be treated in the same manner as represented parties and must follow the correct rules of procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) A self-represented litigant is not entitled to any greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [self-represented litigants are entitled to same treatment as represented parties]; see Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.6(15) [defines “parties” as including both self-represented persons and persons represented by an attorney of record without making any distinction between them].) The fact that the parties are self-represented litigants does not relieve them of the requirements, law, and procedures applied to all parties who appear in this court. Self-represented litigants are “held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

The Clerk shall give notice of the ruling.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE