Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV01981, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01981    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Overland Plaza, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings this unlawful detainer action against Defendant C&M Cafe, LLC (“Defendant”) concerning commercial property located at 3400 Overland Avenue, Suites 102-104, in Los Angeles, California. On November 4, 2022, Defendant, a corporate entity, filed an Answer on its own behalf. Plaintiff now moves to strike the Answer, arguing a corporate entity can only appear and participate in litigation through counsel and Defendant is unable to appear on its own behalf. On November 22, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion from December 16 to December 7. Defendant was ordered to file an opposition by December 2.

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

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s Answer in this action, arguing Defendant is a corporate entity which can only participate in this action through counsel. It is undisputed that Defendant 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.) The Court informed Defendant of this requirement at the hearing on Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion to strike.

Where an unrepresented corporate entity files a pleading on its own behalf, the Court’s proper recourse is to strike it. (CLD Construction, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1146 [“if CLD's complaint was, as respondent asserts, incurably defective insofar as it was subscribed only by its president, the court could strike it”].) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s Answer. The Court in CLD Construction addressed whether such a motion should be granted with or without leave to amend. The Court found leave to amend should be granted, reasoning:

[I]t is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court. First and foremost, this approach honors the cornerstone jurisprudential policies that, in furtherance of justice, complaints are to be liberally construed (§ 452) and disputes should be resolved on their merits (Hocharian v. Superior Court(1981) 28 Cal.3d 714, 724 [170 Cal. Rptr. 790, 621 P.2d 829]).

(Id. at 1149.)

The Court is mindful that this is an unlawful detainer action which is intended to afford litigants a streamlined procedure to adjudicate their respective rights in real property. The Court in its discretion will give Defendant 20 days to locate and retain counsel and file an amended Answer. If Defendant fails to file an amended Answer in that time, Plaintiff may move for entry of default.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Answer of Defendant C&M Cafe, LLC, is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.