Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV00462, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00462    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a failure to pay rent.  Plaintiff Ackerman Investment Partnership L.P. is seeking to recover unpaid rent from its former tenant, Defendant Mouche, LLC. 

Defendant filed an Answer on May 23, 2023.  On October 4, 2024, the Court entered an order permitting Defendant’s counsel to withdraw.  Defendant did not retain new counsel. 

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of Defendant.  Plaintiff argues that Defendant is without counsel; an LLC cannot appear in pro per, and therefore, Defendant’s answer must be stricken, and default must be entered against it.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.    

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.)

MEET AND CONFER

Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5 requires that before the filing of a motion to strike, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a)(3).)  Plaintiff submits the Declaration of Terry J. Kent which attests counsel attempted to reach Defendant without success.  The Court concludes Plaintiff has satisfied its meet and confer obligations. 

DISCUSSION

Under California law, a corporation can only appear in a civil matter through a licensed attorney.  (Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898.)  This rule extends to LLCs. (See Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit District (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578-579.)

Defendant is not currently represented by counsel.  It cannot represent itself in pro per.  Because Defendant cannot represent itself, its answer is not filed in conformity with the laws and must be stricken pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 436.

Further, the striking of an answer leads inexorably to the entry of default.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 585, subds. (a), (b) (stating that the clerk “shall enter the default of the defendant” who fails to respond to a duly served complaint).)  Because the Court has stricken Defendant’s answer, Defendant is subject to an entry of default against it.  Accordingly, the Court enters default against Defendant.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer and enters default against Defendant.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit a default judgment package within 30 days of this Order.  The Court further sets an Order to Show Cause re: Default Judgment on February 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.     

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 6, 2024                                               ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court