Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV20339, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20339    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Yvette Gur-Arie (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

             This action arises from Plaintiff’s allegations of inadequate care by her healthcare providers. On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the complaint (“Complaint”) against defendants Raya’s Paradise, Inc., Sunset Healthcare Inc., Brian Rosales, Arman Ahangarzadeh, (collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 through 200 alleging causes of action for: (1) elder abuse/neglect; and (2) negligence/professional negligence.

            On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

MEET AND CONFER

            The parties have satisfied the meet and confer requirement.  

DISCUSSION

            The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) 

            On October 4, 2024, defendant Sunset Healthcare Inc., in pro per, filed an answer (the “Answer”) to the Complaint. “[U]nder 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.) A motion to strike is appropriate when a pleading by a corporate party is signed by an officer of the corporation or an individual who is not an attorney. (See Id. at 1146.)

            Because the Answer purports to be signed by Sunset Healthcare Inc., in pro per, and not an attorney, it is not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (Answer, p. 6) Thus, the Answer must be stricken as improper. The Motion is GRANTED.  

The non-represented entity party is advised of its need to find an attorney, or it will face the possibility of dismissal or default for lack of representation. (See Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5 [court has duty to inform corporate client of need for representation].) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 13th day of February 2025