Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

AVB STUDIO CITY, LP,

Plaintiff,

LBN TV NETWORKS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 23BBCV01946

Hearing Date: March 29, 2024

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff AVB Studio City, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant LBN TV Networks LLC (“Defendant”). The property at issue is located at 10983 Bluffside Drive, #6315, Studio City, CA 91604. Plaintiff is alleged to be the owner of the premises. Plaintiff alleges that on November 30, 2019, it entered into a written agreement for a 15-month tenancy with Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on August 12, 2023 and the period for Defendant to comply expired on August 16, 2023. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, past due rent of $36,529.00, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $101.73 per day from September 1, 2023.

On September 29, 2023, the default of all unnamed occupant was entered.

On December 22, 2023, the default of Defendant was entered.

On December 22, 2023, the default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant was entered for possession of the premises.

B. Motion on Calendar

On January 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to stay. The Court notes that on the same day, Defendant filed an ex parte application for an order staying execution on the judgment until a hearing on Defendant’s motion to set aside judgment, and an order shortening time for hearing and service of the motion to set aside. Both the motion and the ex parte application are on calendar for March 29, 2024.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

There are several procedural issues.

First, Defendant is a corporate entity and thus it cannot represent itself in propria persona. (See Rogers v. Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318.) The caption of the papers state “LBN TV NETWORKS [¶] ALANDER PULLIAM.” It does not appear that Alander Pulliam is an attorney. As Defendant cannot represent itself and it is not currently represented by counsel, the papers filed by Defendant are not proper.

Second, Defendant is in default and default judgment was entered against it. In its ex parte application papers, Defendant requests a stay on the execution of judgment until a hearing on his/her motion to set aside the default, vacate the default, and/or shortening the time for service and hearing on a motion to set aside. However, no motion to set aside the default and default judgment has been filed by Defendant. Further, this ex parte application (and any motion to set aside the default and default judgment) would be improper as Defendant is a self-represented corporate entity.

Third, “[]a defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or demand notice of subsequent proceedings.” (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–386.) As such, the motion for a stay is improper as Defendant is a defaulted party.

Finally, the motion is not accompanied by a proof of service. Thus, it does not appear that Plaintiff has notice of the motion to stay or the hearing on the motion, and did not have an opportunity to oppose the motion. This is another ground to deny the motion.

For these reasons, the motion for a stay is stricken and taken off-calendar as an improperly filed motion. If Defendant intends to defend this action, it must retain an attorney to represent it as a corporate entity cannot represent itself.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant LBN TV Networks LLC’s motion for a stay is taken off-calendar as an improperly filed motion.