Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV23509, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV23509    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant and cross-complainant 1153 Roscomare Project, LLC  

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Strike Answer

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant and cross-complainant 1153 Roscomare Project, LLC (“Cross-Complainant”) moves the court for an order striking the answer to its First Amended Cross-Complaint filed by cross-defendant RS Carpentry, Design & Remodeling Inc. (“Cross-Defendant”) and entering Cross-Defendant’s default.  Cross-Complainant moves for this relief on the ground that Cross-Defendant is a corporation unrepresented by counsel.

“[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.  It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.”  (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)  

Cross-Defendant is a corporation.  (Booth Decl., Ex. A [Articles of Incorporation for Cross-Defendant].)  Thus, Cross-Defendant is required to be represented by counsel in this action.  (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.)  However, on September 20, 2023, Cross-Defendant filed a “Substitution of Attorney” form (Judicial Council form MC-050), stating that it was substituting in to represent itself in this action in place of attorney Raviv Netzah.  (Cross-Def. Sep. 20, 2023 Substitution of Attorney, MC-050, ¶¶ 1-2.)  Cross-Defendant has not (1) filed another Substitution of Attorney form, stating that it is now represented by counsel, or (2) filed an opposition or other evidence with the court establishing that it has since retained counsel.

Thus, the court finds that Defendant is improperly representing itself in propria persona.  The court therefore grants Cross-Complainant’s motion to strike Cross-Defendant’s answer to its First Amended Cross-Complaint.  (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145; Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [court may strike any pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state”].)

ORDER

            The court grants defendant and cross-complainant 1153 Roscomare Project, LLC’s motion to strike answer.

            The court orders that the “Answer to First Amended Cross-Complaint” filed by cross-defendant RS Carpentry Design & Remodeling Inc. on April 24, 2023, is stricken.

            The court orders defendant and cross-complainant 1153 Roscomare Project, LLC to file a Request for Entry of Default (Judicial Council form CIV-100) as to cross-defendant RS Carpentry Design & Remodeling Inc. no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

            The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of default (as to cross-defendant RS Carpentry Design & Remodeling Inc.) for hearing on January 24, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders defendant and cross-complainant 1153 Roscomare Project, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 28, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court