Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00044910-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 28, 2024

06/28/2024  03:30:00 PM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00044910-CU-FR-CTL MALLORY N CARR AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT ROBERT HORACE CARR AKA ROBERT H CARR VS GREATER LA ESCROW INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants The REO Group, Inc. and Canary Asset Management, Inc.'s motion to strike the third amended complaint, joined by Defendants Greater LA Escrow, Inc. and Jessica Greengard, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Mallory N. Carr is the administrator of the estate of decedent Robert H. Carr, and has brought this case solely on behalf of the estate. As of May 31, 2024, Plaintiff has attempted to substitute herself (i.e., Ms. Mallory N. Carr) as the legal representative of the estate, in place of her former counsel, Steven Sabel. (ROA #'s 394-395.) Defendants now move to strike the TAC on the grounds that Plaintiff is not represented by counsel and therefore cannot prosecute this case. The court agrees.

A nonlawyer cannot act as the legal representative for any other person or entity other than him or herself. (See, e.g., Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5 ['In California a corporation may not represent itself, except in a small claims proceeding. This prohibition stems from the notion a corporate representative who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.']; see also Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 725, 729-31 [reaffirming the well-established rule that a 'corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.' (quoting Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199)].) The same is true with respect to the representative of an estate. (See Estate of Sanchez (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 331, 340 [affirming an order striking a complaint maintained by a pro per executor].) Thus, when a nonlawyer like Ms. Carr 'brings a nonprobate action in propria persona on behalf of the estate,' the proper remedy is 'for the trial court to strike the complaint.' (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 619.) Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike is granted.

The third amended complaint is ordered stricken.

Defendants are directed to provide the court with a proposed judgment.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3142370  63