Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01137, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01137    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 8

T­entative Ruling¿

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 March 23, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  22TRCV01137

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Optio Solution, LLC; Qualia Collection Services v. Global United Solutions, et al.

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Optio Solutions, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       None.  ¿ 

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                         Not Set

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Oder Establishing Admissions and Genuineness of Documents

(2) Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED as to individual defendant John Silva, but DENIED as to Defendant Global United Solutions, Inc.  The corporation has not validly appeared in this case because the Answer filed on behalf of the individual and the corporation was submitted and signed exclusively by Mr. Silva in pro per, but corporations are required to be represented by counsel in order to lawfully appear in California courts.  Therefore, the corporation was not properly served by mail with the RFAs since there is no lawful appearance in this action by the corporation so it must be served with discovery requests in accordance with CCP §416 et seq.

                                                (2) GRANTED in the amount of $500 as against Mr. Silva only

I.                   BACKGROUND 

A.    Factual

On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff, Optio Solutions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Global United Solutions, Inc., Global Transport, John Silva, and DOES 1 through 10. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for a bad check for the $59,000 payment of a new Mercedes-Benz motor vehicle form Mercedes-Benz of South Bay.

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission and Genuineness of Documents, Set One on each Defendant by mail. (Declaration of D. Lilah McLean in Support of Motion ("McLean Decl."), ¶ 12, Exhibit, A, B.) Plaintiff further notes that the mailing address to which the Requests were served were the same addresses indicated on Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint. (McLean Decl., ¶ 13, Exhibits A, B.) Plaintiff notes that the Defendants’ respective deadlines to respond was February 1, 2023. However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have not responded. (McLean Decl., ¶ 4.)

Based on this, Plaintiff now moves for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matter specified in the request and the genuineness of the document submitted therewith. Plaintiff also seek sanctions in the amount of $522.50.

B.     Procedural

On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Oder Establishing Admissions and Genuineness of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II.                MEET AND CONFER

The Court did not see any declaration indicating whether Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to meet and confer before bringing this motion.

III.             ANALYSIS 

A.    Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”¿ (CCP § 2033.010.)¿ “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . .”¿ (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) 

B.     Discussion

Here, it does not appear that Defendants have filed any response to Plaintiff’s requests. However, Plaintiff makes no indication that its counsel has attempted to meet and confer with Defendants.  As to Mr. Silva, an individual defendant, the motion to deem matters admitted appears to be valid.  However, the Court is troubled by the fact that the RFAs to the corporate defendant were served by mail, not personally delivered to the registered agent for service of process.  The corporate defendant has not filed a valid answer or otherwise appeared in this action being represented by an attorney, so it cannot validly be served by regular mail. 

“A natural person may represent himself and present his own case to the court although he is not a licensed attorney. A corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. Out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives and in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys. A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona.”

Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898 (emphasis added).  In Paradise, the Second District dismissed an appeal purportedly filed by a corporation because the notice of appeal was void, having been filed in propria persona.  A corporation lacks the power to represent itself in an action in court.  Global United Solutions, Inc. purported to file an Answer together with Mr. Silva, who signed the document and listed himself as acting for himself and the company in pro per.  Plaintiff appears to have recognized this in filing a request to enter the default of the corporate defendant.  Following this logic, the Court finds that as to Global United Solutions, Inc., the Answer signed by Mr. Silva in pro per is void.  The corporate defendant has failed to appear in this action through counsel, and thus it cannot be served with papers such as requests for admission by mail at the address given in the Answer.  Without valid service of the RFAs on the corporation, the Court denies the motion to have matters deemed admitted as to Global United Solutions, Inc.

C.    Sanctions