Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC02254, Date: 2024-06-06 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: 23STLC02254    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, June 6, 2024

Case Name:                             OCEAN NETWORK EXPRESS PTE LTD C/O OCEAN NETWORK EXPRESS (NORTH AMERICA) INC v. CPJ CO., A CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive

Case No.:                                23STLC02254

Motion:                                   Motion to Strike Corporate Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Ocean Network Express PTE LTD C/O Ocean Network Express (North America) Inc.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Ocean Network Express PTE LTD C/O Ocean Network Express (North America) Inc’s Motion to Strike Corporate Defendant’s Answer to Complaint is GRANTED.

As to Plaintiff’s request for entry of default, Plaintiff must file and serve a proper request for entry of default on Form CIV-100.

SERVICE: 

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None Filed as of June 4, 2024             [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None Filed as of June 4, 2024             [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On April 06, 2024, Plaintiff Ocean Network Express PTE LTD C/O Ocean Network Express (North America) Inc (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of contract against Defendant CPJ Co., A Corporation (“Defendant”).

Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 18, 2023.

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint.

On April 18, 2024, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motion for Plaintiff to provide proper notice of the correct date, time, and place of the hearing.

On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of continued hearing with the correct date, time, and place.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an order striking Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint on the grounds that Defendant, as a corporation, does not have the legal capacity to represent itself in this Court and enter default against Defendant.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

            “Where a party is represented by an attorney, his pleading need not be verified but shall be signed by the attorney for the party. The signature of the attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is ground to support it. If the pleading is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purposes of this section, it may be stricken.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1250.330.)

II.        Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for the Court to issue and order striking Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint.

            Plaintiff asserts that that because the Defendant is a corporation, Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint is improper as it does not have the legal capacity to defend itself. The Court agrees as “[a] corporation not itself being a natural person, can make a court appearance only through a natural person obviously a person other than the corporate person. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.) Although a corporation has capacity to sue and defend, a corporation is not a natural person, and therefore cannot appear in an action in propria persona, it can appear only through counsel. (Id.)

Here Defendant’s Answer appears to indicate self-representation. This is impermissible since Defendant, as a corporation, can only participate in the litigation if it is represented by an attorney.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is GRANTED. As to Plaintiff’s request for entry of default, Plaintiff must file and serve a proper request for entry of default on Form CIV-100.

III.       Conclusion

            Plaintiff Ocean Network Express PTE LTD C/O Ocean Network Express (North America) Inc’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Defendant’s Answer filed on May 18, 2023 is STRICKEN.

Plaintiff must file and serve a proper request for entry of default on Form CIV-100.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice and to attach the Tentative Ruling as Exhibit “A”.