Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV14905, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14905 Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 Dept: 68
Monique Washington vs. A and R Capital LLC, 23STCV14905
Motion to Strike Answer
Moving Party: Plaintiff Monique
Washington
Motion
Plaintiff
Monique Washington (Plaintiff) filed her complaint against Defendant A and R
Capital LLC (Defendant) on June 27, 2023. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes
of action related to habitability. On August 16, 2023, Defendant, a
corporation, filed its unverified answer to Plaintiff’s in pro per. On December
7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s answer. No opposition
has been filed.
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