Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00338, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00338    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

 

 

HEARING DATE:     January 26, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE: November 14, 2023

                                                          

CASE:                         GIOVANNI VILLEGAS, an individual, RUTH ZHOU, an individual, v. CITEA DRINKS, a California Corporation, WEI ZHANG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.  

 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00338

 

           

 

MOTION TO STRIKE

 

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs Giovanni Villegas and Ruth Zhou

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       No response filed.

 

SERVICE:                               Motion to strike filed December 13, 2022

                                                  Motion to compel further responses filed December 19, 2022

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 

            Plaintiffs move to strike CiTea Drinks’s answer on the grounds that CiTea Drinks is an unrepresented corporation.

 

            Plaintiffs move to compel further discovery responses from CiTea Drinks and Wei Zhang.

 

BACKGROUND

 

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Giovanni Villegas (“Villegas”) and Ruth Zhou’s (“Zhou”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) employment law claims against Defendants CiTea Drinks and Wei Zhang (“Defendants”). Villegas worked as a cashier for Defendants beginning on or about July 1, 2021, and Zhou worked as a bobarista and shift lead for Defendants starting around May 2021. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid through cash transfers and failed to provide a single paystub. Plaintiffs allege that they were never compensated certain hours they worked. Zhou alleges she suffered from sexual harassment and sexual orientation harassment while employed by Defendants.

 

            Plaintiffs filed this case on June 7, 2022, alleging thirteen causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to furnish wage statements, (3) failure to maintain payroll records, (4) failure to pay wages in a timely manner, (5) waiting time penalties, (6) unfair competition, (7) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (8) hostile work environment harassment, (9) retaliation, (10) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (11) FEHA violation based upon retaliation, (12) failure to pay overtime compensation, and (13) FEHA violations based upon sexual harassment.

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

            Plaintiffs’ motion to strike CiTea Drinks’s answer is GRANTED

 

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses from Zhang is GRANTED.

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses from CiTea Drinks is continued for 60 days .

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

Motion to Strike

 

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a 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 California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, 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.)   

 

Motion to Compel Further Responses

 

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

 

DISCUSSION

 

            Application for Motion to Strike

 

            Plaintiffs move to strike Citea Drinks answer to their complaint on the grounds that CiTea Drinks is a corporation that is not represented by a licensed attorney.

 

             “A corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business. (§ 17; Corp.Code, §§ 105, 207.) However, 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 Roman (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)

 

            On November 29, 2022, CiTea Drinks filed a substitution of attorney form seeking to substitute out its former counsel and substitute Zhang as the counsel of record. However, there is no indication that Zhang is a licensed attorney. Further, Defendants checked the box providing that the “party is representing self”. The form provides that a corporation may not act as its own attorney and Zhang does not provide he is a licensed attorney. Thus, CiTea Drinks is impermissibly seeking to have an officer who is not an attorney represent it.

 

            CiTea Drinks is therefore not properly represented. Plaintiffs motion to strike CiTea Drinks’s answer is granted with leave to amend.

 

            Application for Motion to Compel Further

 

            Plaintiffs provide that on August 1, 2022, they served both Defendants separate requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”), form interrogatories, and special interrogatories. (LaCour Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs provide that Defendants’ first responses to the discovery requests were deficient or incomplete. Plaintiffs provide that after various attempts to meet and confer, the parties agreed to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to December 5, 2022. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs provide they have not received Defendants’ supplemental responses or any further communications. (Id. ¶ 17.)

 

            Motion to Compel Further as to Zhang

 

            RFP No. 1: ALL DOCUMENTS referring or relating to ALL ownership or equity interests YOU have in CiTea Drinks.

 

            RFP No. 2: ALL DOCUMENTS referring or relating to YOUR ability to manage, hire, fire, or direct the work of employees of CiTea Drinks.

 

            RFP No. 3: ALL DOCUMENTS referring or relating to YOUR ability to set or influence the wages, hours, or working conditions of employees of CiTea Drinks

 

            RFP No. 4: ALL DOCUMENTS referring or relating to responsibilities or job duties that YOU shared with CiTea Drinks

 

            Form Interrog. No. 2.5: State: (a) your present residence ADDRESS; (b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and (c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.

 

            Form Interrog. No. 2.6: State: (a) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of your present employer or place of selfemployment; and (b) the name, ADDRESS, dates of employment, job title, and nature of work for each employer or self-employment you have had from five years before the INCIDENT until today.

 

            Form Interrog. No. 12.1: State the name, address, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the incident or the events occurring immediately before or after the incident; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the incident; (c) who heard any statements made about the incident by any individual at the scene; and (d) who you or anyone acting on your behalf claim has knowledge of the incident (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).

 

            Form Interrog. No. 15.1: Identify each denial of a material allegation and each special or affirmative defense in your pleadings and for each: (a) State all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense; (b) State the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (c) Identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your denial or special or affirmative defense and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT.

 

            Special Interrog. No. 2: IDENTIFY ALL DOCUMENTS that support YOUR response to Specially Prepared Interrogatory No. 1.

 

            Special Interrog. No. 3: IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR response to Specially Prepared Interrogatory No. 1

 

            Special Interrog. No. 7: IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR response to Specially Prepared Interrogatory No. 5.

 

            Special Interrog. No. 10: IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR response to Specially Prepared Interrogatory No. 8.

 

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for production of documents from Zhang is granted.

 

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their form interrogatories and special interrogatories is granted.

 

 

 

 

 

            Motion to Compel Further as to CiTea Drinks

 

            CiTea Drinks is an unrepresented corporation for the purposes of this action and cannot represent itself or be represented by a non-attorney director, Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court, 21 Cal. 3d 724, 581 P.2d 636, 147 Cal. Rptr. 631, 1978 Cal. LEXIS 257. Because CiTea Drink is unrepresented and its answer was ordered stricken, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from CiTea Drinks is continued for 60 days.  In the interim the Plaintiff are directed to proceed with default proceedings against them forthwith.

 

CONCLUSION

 

            Plaintiffs’ motion to strike CiTea Drinks’s answer is GRANTED.

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses from Zhang is GRANTED.  Zhang is directed to provide code complaint verified responses without objections within 20 days.

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses from CiTea Drinks is continued to March 22nd at 8:30 a.m.

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

 

 

 

           

Dated:  January 26, 2023                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court



Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org