Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV39766, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV39766 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: 68
Angelica Montano vs. El Zarape Melrose Corp., et al.,
22STCV39766
Motion to Strike Defendant El Zarape Cocina on Melrose,
Inc.’s Answer
Moving Party: Plaintiff Angelica
Montano
Background
Plaintiff Angelica
Montano (Plaintiff) has filed this motion to strike Defendant El Zarape Cocina
on Melrose Inc.’s Answer because Defendant El Zarape Cocina on Melrose, Inc.
(Defendant) is not represented by counsel. On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed
its Answer through its “Representative” Joaquin Mendez. Defendant is a
corporation and cannot represent itself, nor can it be represented by someone
who is not an attorney.
Plaintiff
filed this motion pursuant to CCP §§ 435 and 436. No opposition has been filed
to the motion.
Analysis
CCP § 435
allows a party to file a motion to strike to a whole pleading or any part
thereof. CCP § 436(b) allows a court to strike out all or any part of any
pleading that is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the state.
California
law prohibits Defendant from representing itself in this action in propria
persona. (See Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21
Cal.3d 724, 729-730 (a company cannot participate in litigation unless it is
represented by a lawyer); Thomas G. Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980)
104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503 (“The rule is clear in this state that, with the sole
exception of small claims court, a corporation cannot act in propria persona in
a California state court.”).) California courts have stricken pleadings of
corporations that are not represented by counsel, as those pleadings are deemed
void. (See Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898.)
Defendant
is not represented by counsel. It is appropriate, pursuant to CCP § 436(b) and
case law, to strike Defendant’s answer.
The Court
grants Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer.
Order
1. Defendant’s
answer is ORDERED STRICKEN.