Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV21370, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21370    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Michael B. Adreani and Burton E. Falk of Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP

(“Counsel”) move to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant and Cross-Complainant Pegasus Trucking, LLC dba Fallas Discount Stores (“Pegasus”).

The Court notes that Cross-Defendant Orly Shoe Corp. (“Orly”) filed a “Statement of Position” regarding Pegasus’s motion to be relieved as counsel. Orly notes that “[a] corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.” ((Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729 [internal quotations omitted].) Orly also cites to Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp. 29, 31-32, which provides, “[w]hen a corporation seeks to appear without the benefit of counsel in other than small claims cases, it is the duty of the trial court to advise the representative of the corporation of the necessity to be represented by a licensed lawyer. If no such licensed representative is present, appearing for the corporation, the court may: (1) hear a motion for continuance; or (2) enter the corporation’s default for nonappearance at trial. We conclude neither the parties nor the court can permit the corporation to appear and conduct a contested (other than small claims) trial in propria persona.”

Orly asserts that “[a]ccordingly, Orly believes that if no new counsel appears on behalf of Pegasus at the April 25, 2023 continued Case Management Conference…and hearing on RPNA’s Motion to Withdraw, the Court can and should dismiss Pegasus’s Cross-Complaint, and enter its default as to the Complaint of Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. (“CAG”) against Pegasus…” (Orly’s Statement of Position at p. 2:15-18.) Orly contends that “[a]lternatively, if the Court is concerned that Pegasus or any duly-appointed Trustee of its creditors be given additional notice or time to engage new counsel, the Court could issue an Order to Show Cause to Pegasus, indicating that if it does not appear by new counsel of record by a certain date in the future (e.g. 30 to 45 days), then its Cross-Complaint will be dismissed, and its Answer will be stricken and its default entered as to CAG’s Complaint against Pegasus.” (Id. at p. 3:1-5.)

The Court declines to dismiss Pegasus’s First Amended Cross-Complaint or enter Pegasus’s default as to CAG’s Complaint. The Court must give Pegasus a reasonable time to locate counsel. The Court finds that 30 days is a reasonable period of time.  If Pegasus does not obtain counsel within the next 30 days, Orly (and/or any other party in the action) may file a regularly noticed motion directed to the issue of lack of representation.  

            Lastly, the Court notes that Item 6 of Pegasus’s proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Form MC-053) is blank. The Court finds that Counsel has otherwise complied with the relevant procedural requirements (CRC 3.1362) and has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal. If Counsel efiles and eserves a revised proposed order prior to the hearing with a courtesy copy delivered to the Court, the Court will grant the motion.¿¿ Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  April 25, 2023                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court