Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00421, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00421    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV00421 ROIC Paramount Plaza, LLC v. Viva Donas, Inc., et al.

Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER OF UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANT, VIVA DONAS, INC.

      This action arises from Defendants’ alleged breached of a written, commercial lease agreement. Defendants, Viva Donas, Inc. (“Viva”), Ashley Leon, and David Vasquez filed their answer on July 14, 2023. On January 9, 2024, the court granted a motion filed by Bruce R. Menke to be relieved as counsel for Viva Donas, Inc., which became effective on January 12, 2024, when counsel filed proof of service of the order on the client.

      Plaintiff moves to strike Viva’s answer as it is a corporation and cannot represent itself. Plaintiff timely served Defendants with the motion. No opposition is filed.

      The court may, upon motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436 subd (a)-(b).)

      At the time Viva filed its answer, it was represented by counsel, who signed the answer. Therefore, the pleading was not improper at the time it was filed. Plaintiff relies on CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, which is distinguishable because the Plaintiff corporation filed a complaint that did not indicate it was represented by counsel, nor did an attorney sign the complaint.  (CLD Construction, Inc. at 1146.)  Plaintiff also cites Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, which is inapposite since in that case, the corporation filed court pleadings in propria persona, which was improper as corporations cannot represent themselves. (Paradise at 898.)

      Plaintiff does not cite any authority that pleadings properly filed on behalf of a corporation by its counsel are invalidated by counsel’s withdrawal, rather it becomes "the duty of the trial judge to advise the representative of the corporation of the necessity to be represented by an attorney.” (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.)

      Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.