Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC05851, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05851     Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 435 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is not permitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 92(d), it is DENIED.

However, on the Court’s own motion, the Answer filed by Jeremy Miller on behalf of Defendant Ing World Wide Group, LLC, on October 10, 2022, is HEREBY STRICKEN.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 7, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 7, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ing World Wide Group, LLC (“Defendant” or “Ing”) for breach of contract, open book account, account stated, and reasonable value.

On October 10, 2022, Jeremy Miller filed an Answer on behalf of Defendant Ing.

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer.

No opposition was filed.

II.              Legal Standard

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper.  (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436(a).)  Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules, or orders.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436(b).)

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 92(d).)  The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall 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 purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a).)

III.            Discussion

On October 10, 2022, Jeremy Miller filed an Answer on behalf of Defendant Ing.

Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendant’s Answer on the basis that, as an entity, Defendant cannot appear in this action as a self-represented party.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Plaintiff states that he attempted to meet and confer with Jeremy Miller and advised him to retain counsel; however, Mr. Miller has informed him that he does not intend to do so “because he is cooperating with plaintiffs assignor to complete the audit.”  (Frischer Decl. ¶ 3.)

As noted above, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 92(d).)  Because Plaintiff’s Motion does not challenge the pleadings on the basis that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations in the complaint, it is not permitted in limited jurisdiction and is thus, DENIED.

However, the Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar. [Citation.]”  (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.)  An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law.  (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection Ass’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).)

As an entity, Defendant Ing World Wide Group, LLC may not appear in this action except through licensed counsel.  There is no indication that Jeremy Miller is an attorney.  Thus, the Answer filed by Jeremy Miller, in propria persona, on October 10, 2022, on behalf of Defendant is HEREBY STRICKEN.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

Because Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is not permitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 92(d), it is DENIED.

However, on the Court’s own motion, the Answer filed by Jeremy Miller on behalf of Defendant Ing World Wide Group, LLC, on October 10, 2022, is HEREBY STRICKEN.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.