Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01331, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24TRCV01331 Hearing Date: May 16, 2024 Dept: 8
HEARING DATE: May 16, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01331
CASE NAME: RREEF America Reit II Corp. BBB v. Burkelly, Inc., et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, RREEF America Reit II Corp. BBB
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Burkelly, Inc. a California corporation doing business as “CYCLEBAR” (No Opposition)
TRIAL DATE: May 16, 2024
MOTION: (1) Motion to Strike Answer
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. Defendant is granted immediate leave to file an amended answer though legal counsel, as corporations cannot represent themselves in California without a lawyer
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff, RREEF America Reit II Corp. BBB (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant, Burkelly, Inc., a California corporation doing business as “CYCLEBAR” (“Defendant”), and DOES 1 through 10.
The complaint is based on Plaintiff’s allegation that it leased the premises known as 3160 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, Space No. S-135, Manhattan Beach, County of Los Angeles, CA 90266, to Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 8.) However, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have entered into the possession of the premises under the lease and continue to occupy the premises. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to pay rent in the amount of $107,945.83 as of April 2, 2024. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff alleges that it served upon Defendants a written notice to pay rent or surrender possession by sending the notice to Defendants via FedEx. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Per the moving papers, plaintiff claims the notice set forth the nature of Defendants’ default and required Defendants to pay rent due or deliver possession of the premises within five (5) days, and states Plaintiff’s election to declare a forfeiture of the lease. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff alleges that more than five (5) days have elapsed since the service of notice, but Defendants have not paid the full amount of rent due and owning, nor have they vacated the premises within the five (5) day period. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) Thus, Plaintiff brought this complaint for unlawful detainer, seeking possession of the premises. (Complaint, ¶ 15.)
On April 29, 2024, Defendant filed an in pro per answer to the unlawful detainer action.
Because Defendant is a corporation, and the Answer was field by an individual rather than by a lawyer representing the corporation, Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendant’s answer.
B. Procedural
On May 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Strike Defendant’s answer. To date, no opposition has been filed.
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
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s answer on the grounds that it was filed in pro per. “[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 Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) A proper response to a corporate pleading filed in pro per is an order striking the answer. (Id.) (motion to strike corporation’s complaint filed in pro per improperly granted w/prejudice and without leave to amend; remanded to allow for leave to file amended pleading). However, the corporate defendant must be allowed an opportunity to file an amended pleading through counsel, because the failure to file an answer with proper representation is a curable defect. (Id.)
As such, this Court will strike Defendant’s answer and give the defendant corporation immediate leave to file an amended answer through its counsel.