Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 20IWUD00072, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20IWUD00072, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20IWUD00072 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 18, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 20IWUD00072

¿¿

CASE NAME: Trojan Capital Investments v. Ynes Torres, et al.

.¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Trojan Capital Investments

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Elias Garcia Marin

TRIAL DATE: Disposed of: May 4, 2020

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Strike

Tentative Rulings: (1) ARGUE. Must Plaintiff reinstate its corporate registration before the Court can consider this motion?

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This is an unlawful detainer case filed on January 14, 2020. On July 19, 2023, Judge Reinert, in his minute order during the hearing on claim right of possession, ordered Defendant to answer within five days. Subsequently, an answer was filed on July 24, 2023.

Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Strike this Answer, arguing Marin should not have been allowed to file an answer in this case as it is for forcible detainer and not a post-foreclosure eviction action.

B. Procedural¿¿

On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Strike. On November 7, 2023, Defendant, Elias Garcia Marin filed an opposition. On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

On December 4, 2023, this Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing as to the motion to strike, noting that it would dismiss Defendant Marin at the next hearing unless a declaration was filed by defense counsel.

Since then, on December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of the Motion to Strike unverified answer of Defendant Elias Garcia Marin. On December 14, 2023, Defendant filed a supplemental opposition.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Motion to Strike

¿ Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)¿¿

B. Discussion

In Plaintiff’s supplemental motion, it argues that despite being given two separate opportunities to provide legal grounds for Marin to prove that he was entitled to file a post judgment claim of right of possession, Marin has failed to do so. Plaintiff contends that this Cour’s issuing of the ruling ordering the parties to provide evidence and argument why the Court should not modify its July 13, 2023 order which allowed Marin to file an answer in this action – given the November 25, 2020 order which instructed the Sherriff’s office to not accept any further post judgment claims of right of possession, as this action is an action for forcible detainer and not a post-foreclosure eviction action. However, Plaintiff notes that Marin did not file any further briefing supporting his position that the Court properly allowed him to file an answer. This Court again continued the hearing and ordered Marin to file his brief by December 11, 2023. However, Marin has failed to do so again.

In Defendant Marin’s supplemental opposition he concedes there is no statutory authority for a claim of right to possession, but argues this Court must refrain from ruling on the motion to strike because Plaintiff is not currently qualified to do business in California because it is currently suspended for failure to pay state taxes. As such, Defendant Marin argues that a foreign corporation whose rights have been forfeited for failure to pay state taxes may not prosecute or defend an action, nor appeal from an adverse judgment. (citing United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1732.) However what Defendant Marin has failed to include in his opposition is that the same case he relies on also states: “[a] foreign corporation transacting intrastate business which has failed to qualify with the Secretary of State may nevertheless defend any action brought against it in state court” and “[a] foreign corporation transacting intrastate business which has failed to qualify with the Secretary of State may also commence an action in state court.” (Id. at 1739.) The Court in Gatto distinguished that a foreign corporation transacting intrastate business which has failed to qualify may not, however, maintain an action commenced prior to qualification, except upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. (Cal. Corp. Code § 2203.)

Here, Defendant Marin’s supplemental opposition fails to expand on its conclusory argument. Marin does not state WHEN Plaintiff was deemed unqualified to do business in California, what stage in the litigation this was, nor whether Plaintiff fails to meet the exceptions of section 2203. The Court will hear oral argument of counsel on thse points, and whether Plaintiff has since reinstated its corporate registration.