Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC05672, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 21STLC05672    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, November 30, 2023

Case Name:                             MATHEW N. FIELDS, et al. v. M Y INVESTMENTS, LLC

Case No.:                                21STLC05672

Motion:                                   MOTION FOR EQUITABLE STRIKING OF DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE AND ALL FILINGS FROM THE RECORD AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY OPERATION OF LAW

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Mathew N. Fields, individually and on behalf of Mathew Nathanial Fields

Responding Party:                   Defendant M Y Investments, L.L.C.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff’s Motion for Equitable Striking of Defendants’ Response and All Filings from The Record and Motion for Summary Judgment by Operation of Law is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

            On November 27, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant M Y Investments, L.L.C. entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff would provide labor, services, equipment and materials for a work of improvement.  Parties agreed on a contract price of $6550, plus any additional sums as the parties would determine as the price for extra work.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay for the work performed and was negligent in filing necessary permits. 

            On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant M Y Investments, L.L.C. alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) mechanic’s lien foreclosure; (3) negligence; (4) fraud.  On September 7, 2021, M Y Investments, L.L.C. filed an improper answer in pro per to the complaint. 

MOVING PARYTY’S POSITION

            Plaintiff asks that the Court strike Defendant’s answer and other documents, because they were not filed by an attorney and Defendant cannot represent itself as a corporate entity.  Plaintiff argues Elmer Romero cannot file anything on Defendant’s behalf based solely on his status as a member of Defendant.  Plaintiff asks that the Court enter summary judgment on his behalf based on equity.

OPPOSITION

            Defendant argues the motion fails to comply with any procedural prerequisites to bring a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment.  Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet and confer, filing the requisite documents or providing sufficient notice.  Defendant asks for leave to amend if the Court agrees that the answer should be stricken.  Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request for motion for summary judgment was not served with proper notice and there are triable issues of fact remaining. 

REPLY—None as of November 28, 2023

ANALYSIS

I.  Motion to Strike Answer of M Y Investments, L.L.C.—DENY as moot

            A.  Applicable Law

            Motion to Strike.  “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, 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. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”  (CCP §436.) 

            Pursuant to CCP §436, the Court may strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” and/or “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”  (CCP §436.)  In ruling on a motion to strike, the allegations in the complaint are considered in context and presumed to be true: “[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.”  (Clauson v. Sup.Ct. (Pedus Services, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  

            Corporation’s self-representation.  “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 Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (corporation filed complaint in pro per and trial court erred when it struck complaint without leave to amend).) 

            “Given the weight of nationwide authority and this state's increasing acceptance of the view that representation of the corporation by an attorney is not an absolute prerequisite to the court's fundamental power to hear or determine a case, we are persuaded it is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court. First and foremost, this approach honors the cornerstone jurisprudential policies that, in furtherance of justice, complaints are to be liberally construed (§ 452) and disputes should be resolved on their merits.”  (Id. at 1149.) 

            “This conclusion also recognizes the legislative directive that a corporation shall be deemed a ‘person’ with the capacity, or legal authority, to sue, that is, to be a party to a lawsuit.  The rule requiring representation by an attorney does not deprive a corporation of this capacity to be a party to a lawsuit. It is not a fact essential to the corporation's cause of action or an element constituting its right of action.  To deem a pleading void because the corporation on whose behalf it was filed, although statutorily authorized to be a party, did not have an attorney sign the pleading, elevates the attorney to a role akin to that of an indispensable party.”  (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1150.)

            “Finally, as this case demonstrates, the absence of legal representation at the threshold step of a lawsuit—filing the complaint—rarely prejudices the opposing party. At such an early stage, denial of a motion to strike or granting leave to amend to show representation by counsel on such terms as the trial court deems just will not frustrate the rule's purpose of guarding against the unlicensed practice of law and preventing its attendant problems. To the extent the opposing party is burdened by having to bring a motion to strike the complaint of a corporation not represented by counsel, the court, as a condition for granting leave to amend, may order the corporation to pay the opposing party's expenses for bringing the motion.”  (Id.)

            B.  Application to Facts

            The motion to strike Defendant’s answer on grounds that it was not filed by an attorney is denied.  M Y Investments L.L.C. filed a substitution of attorney on June 15, 2023.  It is no longer self-represented and the answer need not be stricken.  The Court set an OSC re: Why Defendant’s Answer Should Not Be Stricken for Failure to Obtain Legal Representation for June 27, 2023.  The Court noted that the issue had been cured and the OSC was discharged.  For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. 

II.  Motion for Summary Judgment—DENY

            Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is not supported by a separate statement.  A separate statement is mandatory.  “The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.”  (CCP §437c(b)(1).)

            Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service of the motion for summary judgment.  The Court cannot determine whether the motion was served with the requisite notice period under CCP §437c(a)(2).

            Plaintiff was required to submit admissible evidence to support his motion for summary judgment.  (CCP §437c(b)(1).)  Plaintiff attaches a single invoice that is not authenticated. (Motion, “Work Invoice.”) 

            Finally, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities does not set forth any legal authorities or legal argument in support of the motion for summary judgment.  (Motion, 2:1-16.) 

            Plaintiff’s alternative motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.