Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV07206, Date: 2024-12-12 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: 24STCV07206    Hearing Date: December 12, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

(1)   Order to Show Cause re Why the Court Should Not Strike the Motion to Quash Service of Summons Because Defendant Lighting Solution Development, LLC is a Limited Liability Company That is Not Represented by Counsel

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Lighting Solution Development, LLC     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(2)   Motion to Quash Service of Summons

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

On September 14, 2023, the court held a case management conference and issued a minute order that, inter alia, set an Order to Show Cause re why the court should not strike the motion to quash service of summons filed by defendant Lighting Solution Development, LLC (“Defendant”) because Defendant is a limited liability company that is not represented by counsel.  (Sep. 13, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The court ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed no later than nine court days before the hearing.  (Ibid.)  On September 13, 2024, the clerk served the court’s September 13, 2024 minute order on Defendant, at the address identified in its court filings, and plaintiff Joseph Ariel Hazani (“Plaintiff”).  (Sep. 13, 2024 Cert. of Mailing, p. 1 [showing service on Defendant at 7889 River Hill Lane, Alexandra, Pennsylvania, 16611]; July 2, 2024 Def. Mot. to Quash, p. 1 [listing Defendant’s address to be 7889 River Hill Lane, Alexandria, PA 16611].)

Thereafter, on October 29, 2024, the court issued a minute order continuing the hearing on the Order to Show Cause and Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons to December 12, 2024.  (Oct. 29, 2024 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The clerk served the October 29, 2024 minute order on Plaintiff and Defendant on that date.  (Oct. 29, 2024 Cert. of Mailing.)  Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

The court finds that Defendant is improperly representing itself in this action.

“[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation [or a limited liability company], 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.)¿¿ 

Defendant is a limited liability company.  (July 2, 2024 Def. Mot. to Quash, p. 1 [identifying itself to be an LLC].)  Thus, Defendant is required to be represented by counsel in this action.  (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.)  However, Defendant’s court filings state that it is representing itself in pro per through its president, David Shiller.  (July 2, 2024 Def. Mot. to Quash, p. 1; Nov. 6, 2024 Def. Response to Amended Summons and Complaint, p. 1.)  Defendant did not (1) file a Substitution of Attorney – Civil form stating that it is now represented by counsel, or (2) file a response to the Order to Show Cause or other evidence establishing that it has since retained counsel.

Thus, the court finds that Defendant is improperly representing itself in propria persona and therefore orders that the “Motion to Quash Service of Summons” filed by Defendant on July 2, 2024 is stricken.  (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145; Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [court may, at any time in its discretion, strike any pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state”].) 

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

For the reasons set forth above, the court has ordered that Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons is stricken.  The court therefore takes the hearing on Defendant’s motion off calendar.

ORDER

            The court orders that the “Motion to Quash Service of Summons” filed by defendant Lighting Solution Development, LLC on July 2, 2024, is stricken.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

            The court orders that the hearing on defendant Lighting Solution Development, LLC’s motion to quash service of summons is taken off calendar.

            The court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 12, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court