Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00042, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00042    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

ALLEGATIONS/HISTORY: 

On January 19, 2022, Fedex Corporate Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against National Apostille, Inc., a California Corporation and dba Apostille (“Defendant”). The Complaint contains a cause of action for an open book account and seeks damages totaling $358,827.30.

On June 15, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer. On January 11, 2023, Defendant’s counsel filed a motion to be relived as counsel, which the Court granted on February 15, 2023.

Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendant’s Answer. No opposition was filed. Jury Trial is scheduled for May 1, 2023.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (C.C.P. §§ 435, 436(a).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules, or orders. (C.C.P. § 436(b).) 

Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5(a) requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, 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 resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.”

II.              MERITS

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5. However, a determination that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny a motion to strike (C.C.P. § 435.5(a)(4).)

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s Answer should be stricken because it is not in conformity with the laws of the state. Plaintiff specifically states the Answer should be stricken because Defendant’s counsel was relieved, and a corporate entity cannot represent itself.  

Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar. (Citation.)” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.) An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself either directly or through a non-lawyer agent. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.)

The Court finds Defendant has had ample time in which to secure counsel but has not. The motion to be relieved as counsel was granted on February 15, 2023. Also on February 15, 2023, Defendant’s counsel provided notice of this ruling to Defendant. The notice was served upon Defendant by mail at 201 Mission St., 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 and by email. Defendant has not made an appearance in the action and has not rendered any opposition to this motion to strike.

The law makes clear that corporate entities must be represented by counsel in legal proceedings. Defendant has had time to secure counsel after previous counsel was relieved and has not. As such, the Court finds Defendant’s Answer should be stricken as they have declined to be represented by counsel after prior counsel was relieved.

--- 

RULING:

---

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.’s Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on April 14, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED. 

FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: April 14, 2023                          

  _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles