Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 21STCV32440, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32440    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: 19

After consideration of the briefing filed, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s unopposed Motion to Strike Defendants Benchmark Post, Inc. and Benchmark Sound Services, Inc.’s Answer is DENIED.

The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Defendants’ Retention of Legal Counsel for May 18, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.  Corporations must be represented by legal counsel in order to defend this action in court. (See CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141).

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a debt collection action. Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants Benchmark Post, Inc. and Benchmark Sound Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1.      Breach of Contract; and

2.      Quantum Meruit.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendants Benchmark Post, Inc. and Benchmark Sound Services, Inc.’s Answer (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants Answer on the ground that Defendants are corporations and are attempting to impermissibly appear in the action in propria persona.

MEET/CONFER

The Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied the meet and confer requirements. (See Joseph Jyoo Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to strike the Answer filed by Defendants on December 23, 2021 on the ground that Defendants have not been represented by counsel effective with the Substitutions of Attorney executed and filed on June 2, 2022. (See Motion, pp. 3-5.)

As an initial matter, Defendants did not file an opposition to the instant Motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides as follows:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.

(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 436; see Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1) [providing a party may move to strike the answer or complaint].)

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

Upon review of the record, while the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants cannot appear in propria persona or be represented by an officer who is not a licensed attorney (see Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503),  the Court does not find that striking the Answer is proper here, as the Answer was filed prior to the filing of the Substitutions of Attorney on June 2, 2022, and former counsel of record appears on the face of the pleading. Therefore, the Court finds that at the time the Answer was filed and served on December 23, 2021, Defendants were properly represented by counsel. Plaintiff provides no legal authority to conclude that the Answer filed under these circumstances is subject to a motion to strike merely because the corporations are no longer represented by counsel.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.