Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC02205, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC02205    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 26

Culley v. Phoenix Distribution Solutions, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

(CCP §§ 435, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Addison Culley’s Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Phoenix Distribution Solutions, LLC is DENIED.

ON ITS OWN MOTION, THE COURT SETS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING THE STATUS OF PHOENIX DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC’s LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR OCTOBER 28, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Addison Culley (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Phoenix Distribution Solutions, LLC (“Defendant PDS) and Johnny Stange (“Defendant Stange”) on March 25, 2024. Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on May 23, 2024.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Answer on July 26, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion to Strike the Answer as to Defendant PDS is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436 on the grounds that Defendant PDS, despite being a corporation, was not represented by an attorney at the time its Answer was filed. Instead, the Answer was made by Defendant Stange. (Answer, filed 05/23/24, p. 1.)

Motions to strike in courts of limited jurisdiction may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) The instant Motion to Strike Defendant PDS’ Answer does not pertain to whether the damages or relief sought are supported by the allegations, and therefore, cannot be raised in this Court.

That being said, it is black letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court. (Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 578.) Defendant PDS’ Answer was filed by its representative instead of a licensed attorney. Therefore, Defendant PDS filed the Answer without proper legal representation and must appear through an attorney going forward.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Addison Culley’s Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Phoenix Distribution Solutions, LLC is DENIED.

ON ITS OWN MOTION, THE COURT SETS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING THE STATUS OF PHOENIX DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS, LLC’s LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR OCTOBER 28, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Court clerk to give notice.