Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV01012, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01012 Hearing Date: January 4, 2023 Dept: 207
Background
Plaintiff JabX Bellevue, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this
action against Defendants Nicole Fox and The Fox Consultancy, Inc. (“TFC”) for
claims related to TFC’s sublease of commercial property located at 8442 Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood, California.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed June 30, 2022, alleges causes of action for breach
of written contract, breach of implied contract, breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief. Defendant TFC was formerly
represented in this action by the Austin Legal Group, APC. On November 22,
2022, the Court granted the Austin Legal Group’s motion to be relieved as
counsel for TFC.
Plaintiff brings a motion to strike the Answer filed by TFC,
arguing it is a corporate entity which is not represented by counsel in this
action and thus is barred from participating in these proceedings. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.
Motion to Strike Standard
Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to
pleadings which are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer
for damages, etc.). (C.C.P. §§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies
only where the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not
been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving
to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.
(C.C.P. § 437.)
Analysis
1. Meet and
Confer Requirement
Before filing a
motion to strike, the moving party is required to “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 purposes of determining whether an agreement can be
reached through a filing of an amended pleading to resolve the objections to be
raised in the demurrer. (C.C.P. § 435.5(a).) The moving party must file a
declaration stating the required meet and confer occurred or showing the
responding party refused to respond or meet and confer in good faith. (C.C.P. §
435.5(a)(3).) Plaintiff has filed no such declaration and thus has not shown it
satisfied the meet and confer requirement imposed by Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5.
Nonetheless, the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. (C.C.P.
§ 435.5(a)(4).)
2. Request to Strike Defendant’s Answer
Plaintiff moves to
strike TFC’s Answer in this action, arguing it is a corporate entity which can
only participate in this action through counsel. Plaintiff is correct that TFC
is unrepresented by counsel. TFC was originally represented by counsel who
filed an Answer on behalf of TFC on September 6, 2022. However, on November 22,
2022, the Court granted a motion to be relieved as counsel brought by TFC’s
former attorneys. The same day, TFC’s counsel served a copy of the Court’s
order on TFC. (Ex. A to Yassin Decl.) This order expressly notified TFC that
corporate entities cannot defend themselves in litigation and warned the
“Failure to retain an attorney may lead to an order striking the pleadings or
to the entry of a default judgment.” (Id. at ¶10.)
It is undisputed
that TFC is a corporate entity, and “under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a
corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of
record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate
officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be
represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120
Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) TFC has been on notice since November 22, 2022, that
it needed to retain counsel to participate in this litigation. TFC has not
filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion or otherwise provided any indicated
to the Court that it has retained counsel to defend it in this action. As TFC
cannot participate in litigation without counsel, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
motion to strike TFC’s Answer. (CLD Construction, supra,
120 Cal.App.4th at 1146; Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts,
Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp. 29, 31.)
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Answer of The Fox
Consultancy, Inc., is GRANTED.