Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from alleged fraud in connection with $6.5 million in loans made by Plaintiff Adly Abdelmalak, who is 77 years old.  The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation, (2) financial elder abuse, (3) money had and received, (4) money lent and (5) breach of personal guarantee.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answers of Defendants Riverview Cottage Homes OC, LLC and Elm Ave. Living LLC (collectively, the “LLC Defendants”).  Plaintiff argues these Defendants are without counsel; they cannot appear in pro per, and therefore, their answers must be stricken, and default must be entered against them.  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 Scott Brown which fails to show the parties met and conferred by telephone or in person.  Notwithstanding, the Court cannot deny a motion to strike based on an insufficient meet and confer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a)(4).)  

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.) 

The LLC Defendants are not currently represented by counsel.  They¿cannot represent themselves in pro per, as that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Because these corporate Defendants cannot represent themselves, their answers are 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 the LLC Defendants’ answers, these Defendants are subject to an entry of default against them.  Accordingly, the Court enters default against the LLC Defendants. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants Riverview Cottage Homes OC, LLC and Elm Ave. Living LLC’s answers and enters default against them.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  August 7, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court