CASE NAME:  Sellers Funding International Portfolio LTD. v. Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC, et al.

Motion to Strike the Answer of Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC 

TENTATIVE RULING

            The Court GRANTS the motion to strike. The answer filed on June 16, 2023 is stricken as to Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC. Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC shall have until October 31, 2023 to retain counsel and file an Answer to the Complaint. If no Answer is filed on behalf of Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC by an attorney licensed to practice law in California, then Plaintiff may request to enter a default as to Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC. 

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice and provide proof of service of same within five calendar days of the Court’s order. 

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract case. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff Sellers Funding International Portfolio LTD. (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC (Cosmic), Marcellus Hannah II (Hannah) (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 to 5, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract. 

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike the answer filed on June 16, 2023 as to Defendant Cosmic. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD – Motion to Strike

“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).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(2).) “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.” (Id., § 436.) 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a), the parties were required to meet and confer before bringing this motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) The Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer to be insufficient. Nowhere in Plaintiff’s declaration does he indicate that he made any attempts to meet and confer with Defendant Cosmic before bringing this motion. (See generally, Sayer Decl.) Nevertheless, the Court may not deny the motion to strike for failure to adequately meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).) The Court will still consider the motion to strike but admonishes Plaintiff to comply with these requirements going forward.

            Analysis

            “’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.’ [Citations.]” (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) 

Plaintiff contends the answer filed on June 16, 2023 should be stricken as to Defendant Cosmic because it was filed by Defendant Hannah, who is not an attorney. (Motion, Ex. 1.) The Court previously discovered this issue itself and set an OSC re Why the Court Should not Strike the Answer as to Defendant Cosmic for October 11, 2023. (Minute Order (6/22/23).) The Court notes that the Defendants’ answer was signed by Defendant Hannah and contains no indication that Defendant Hannah is a licensed attorney. (Motion, Ex. 1.) The Court further takes judicial notice of its file which shows that Defendant Cosmic currently has no attorney of record. (See Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); see Foster v. Gray (1962) 203 Cal.App.3d 434, 439 [courts may take judicial notice of their own records].) Additionally, given Defendant Cosmic’s lack of opposition to the motion, the Court finds Plaintiff’s contentions to be meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 504, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike. The answer filed on June 16, 2023 is hereby STRICKEN as to Defendant Cosmic.

CONCLUSION

            The Court GRANTS the motion to strike. The answer filed on June 16, 2023 is stricken as to Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC. Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC shall have until October 31, 2023 to retain counsel and file an Answer to the Complaint. If no Answer is filed on behalf of Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC by an attorney licensed to practice law in California, then Plaintiff may request to enter a default as to Defendant Cosmic Cell Productions, LLC. 

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice and provide proof of service of same within five calendar days of the Court’s order.