Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV28706, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28706 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
22STCV28706 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
February
11, 2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: order to show cause why the court should not
strike defendant’s answer and cross-complaint |
||
Order to Show Cause why the Court Should not Strike Defendant’s Answer
and Dismiss Cross-Complaint
Plaintiff Voyage Mobile Inc. filed
this action against defendant Dose of Roses, Inc. (“Defendant”) on September 2,
2022.
On October 31, 2022, Defendant filed (1) an answer to the Complaint,
and (2) a Cross-Complaint against plaintiff and
cross-defendant Voyage Mobile Inc. At
that time, Defendant was represented by the law firm Cirlin Goldberg LLP. (Answer, p. 1:1-6; Cross-Compl., p.
1:1-7.) On June 8, 2023, Defendant filed
a “Substitution of Attorney—Civil” form, in which Defendant stated that it was
substituting in to represent itself in this action in place of Cirlin Goldberg
LLP. (Sub. of Attorney, MC-050, ¶¶ 1-2.)
On January 8, 2025, the court issued a minute order setting for
hearing the pending Order to Show Cause re as to why the court should not
strike Defendant’s answer and dismiss the cross-complaint for hearing on
February 11, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. (Jan. 8,
2025 Minute Order, p. 1.) The court
further ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed no
later that nine court days before the hearing.
(Ibid.) The clerk mailed a
copy of the court’s January 8, 2025 minute order to Defendant at its address of
record, as set forth on the Substitution of Attorney—Civil form filed by June
8, 2023, on January 8, 2025. (Jan. 8,
2025 Cert. of Mailing, p. 1; Sub. of Attorney, MC-050, ¶ 2.)
The court finds that its January 8, 2025 minute order did not
adequately set forth the reason why the court was setting the Order to Show
Cause. Specifically, the court’s minute
order did not explain that it was setting the Order to Show Cause on the ground
that Defendant is a corporation that is not represented by counsel and
therefore is improperly representing itself in this action.
The court finds that it is appropriate, and therefore exercises its
discretion, (1) to discharge the Order to Show Cause set for hearing on
February 11, 2025, and (2) to set a new Order to Show Cause why (1) the Answer
of defendant Dose of Roses, Inc. should not be stricken, and (2) the
cross-complaint filed by cross-complainant Dose of Roses, Inc. should not be
dismissed, because it is a corporation that is not represented by counsel, so
that Defendant has notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue that is the
subject of the Order to Show Cause.
ORDER
The court discharges the Order to
Show Cause set for hearing on February 11, 2025.
The court sets an Order to Show Cause why (1) the Answer of defendant
Dose of Roses, Inc. should not be stricken, and (2) the cross-complaint filed by
cross-complainant Dose of Roses, Inc. should not be dismissed, because it is a
corporation that is not represented by counsel, for hearing on March 14, 2025
at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.
Any response to the Order to Show
Cause shall be filed no later than nine court days before the hearing on the
Order to Show Cause.
The court directs the clerk to give
notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court