Judge Lisa R. Jaskol, Case Number: 20STCV16266, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

                            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.

        If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff Kulwant Singh (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Home Depot, USA, Inc. (“Home Depot”), Sundial Powder Coating, Ltd. (“Sundial”), and Does 1-20 for general negligence.

On March 11, 2022, Home Depot removed the case to federal court. On March 17, 2022, the United States District Court remanded the case to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

On August 8, 2023, the Court granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment. On September 1, 2023, the Court entered judgment for Home Depot on Plaintiff’s complaint. On September 22, 2023, Home Depot served notice of entry of judgment.

On April 5, 2024, the Court ordered Sundial to obtain counsel. The Court scheduled a status conference on Sundial’s representation on July 12, 2024. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to give notice.

On July 12, 2024, Sundial failed to appear. The Court continued the status conference to September 30, 2024. The Court ordered Plaintiff to give notice.

On September 30, 2024, Sundial again failed to appear. The Court continued the status conference to January 16, 2025 and ordered Plaintiff to give notice.

On January 16, 2025, Sundial did not appear. The Court continued the status conference to April 21, 2025. The Court ordered Plaintiff to give notice.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Sundial’s answer. The motion was set for hearing on February 11, 2025. Sundial did not file an opposition. The Court continued the hearing to April 21, 2025.

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” ^{^[1]} (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

“The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) “Where the motion to strike is based on matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (b).)

“As a general rule, it is well-established in California that a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.” (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101; see Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729.)

As noted, on March 21, 2022, Shivie Dhillon filed an answer on Sundial’s behalf. On September 30, 2024, the Court issued a minute order which stated in part, “Defendant Sundial Powder Coating, LTD, has yet to obtain counsel. A business entity may not be represented by a pro per individual. [¶] Plaintiff may proceed with a Motion to Strike.”

Citing the Court’s September 30, 2024 order, Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the answer. But the Court’s September 30, 2024 order (and prior orders) did not make factual findings about whether Shivie Dhillon is or was an attorney. The Court may have assumed that Shivie Dhillon was not an attorney, but the Court has never reviewed evidence or reached a conclusion that would support an order striking Sundial’s answer.

If Plaintiff believes that the Court should strike Sundial’s answer because a non-attorney filed it, Plaintiff should (1) present evidence to support his contention that Shivie Dhillon was not an attorney when he or she filed the answer and (2) present legal authority supporting Plaintiff’s contention that the Court should exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 to strike Sundial’s answer even though no party challenged the answer for almost three years after Shivie Dhillon filed it on March 21, 2022.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Kulwant Singh’s motion to strike Defendant Sundial Powder Coating, Ltd.’s answer.

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

[1] Under Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (e), “A motion to strike, as specified in this section, may be made as part of a motion pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (i) of Section 438.” A party may file a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 438, subdivision (i)(1)(A) if, after the Court has granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend, “an amended pleading is filed and the moving party contends that pleading is filed after the time to file an amended pleading has expired or that the pleading is in violation of the court’s prior ruling on the motion . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (i)(1)(A).)

Plaintiff did not file a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (e).