Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 19STCV33310, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV33310    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 17, 2023                               TRIAL DATE:  May 6, 2024

CASE:                         Mayra Ysela Rivera Sanchez, et al. v. Victory Bistro Cafe

CASE NO.:                 19STCV33310

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Mayra Ysela Rivera Sanchez, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs, Mayra Ysela Rivera Sanchez and Drexler Pacia Serrato, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Victory Bistro Cafe, alleging various Labor Code violations.  Defendant is a corporation.

            On December 19, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

            On December 1, 2023, counsel for Defendant was relieved as counsel of record.

            On December 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to strike Defendant’s Answer. 

            The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO STRIKE  

            Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)¿ On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)¿ 

            “The grounds for a motion to strike are limited to matters appearing on the face of the challenged pleading or matters which must or may be judicially noticed. (§ 437, subd. (a); Evid. Code, §§ 451, 452.).” (Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 20.) 

III.      DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves for an order to strike Defendant’s Answer.  On December 1, 2023, the Court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  Defendant is a corporation.  As such, Plaintiff contends that Defendant cannot represent itself.  

Plaintiff is correct.  “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.)¿ As a corporation, Defendant may not appear in this action except through licensed counsel. 

            IV.        CONCLUSION

The motion to strike Defendant’s Answer, filed December 19, 2019, is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs may purse default proceedings against Defendant.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived. 

Dated:   January 17, 2024