Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV15444, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15444    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Carlos Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants The Wolf Logistics, LLC (“Wolf Logistics”) and Black Panther Logistics, LLC. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2024, alleging fourteen causes of action.

On September 12, 2022, Wolf Logistics filed an answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff now moves for an order striking the answer and entering the default of Wolf Logistics. The motion is unopposed. 

Discussion

A court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or all or any part of a 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.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Plaintiff moves for an order striking the answer and entering the default of Wolf Logistics “on the ground that a corporation or LLC cannot appear on its behalf, as [Wolf Logistics] has sought to do by substituting out its attorney of record on October 4, 2024.” (Mot. at p. 2:3-4.) On October 4, 2024, Wolf Logistics filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating that Dana Douglas, Esq. is Wolf Logistics’ former legal representative, and that Wolf Logistics is now representing itself. Plaintiff’s counsel states that he “met and conferred about the issue of the Wolf representing itself with the principal of the Wolf, Ali Alwaely on October 22, 2024. The meet and confer was telephonic. However, Mr. Alwaely could not state when he could obtain an attorney, contending that he was using an ‘app’ to attempt to locate one.” (Harris Decl., ¶ 3.)

“As a general rule, it is well established in California that a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney.” (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Controls Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) Plaintiff cites to CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1148, footnote 2, where the Court of Appeal cited to United States v. High Country Broad. Co. (9th Cir. 1993) 3 F.3d 1244, for its holding that it was “‘perfectly appropriate’ to enter default judgment against corporation when corporation’s president/sole shareholder does not follow court order to obtain counsel.” The Court notes that Plaintiff has not previously requested such an order from the Court and the Court has not sua sponte issued an order for Wolf Logistics to obtain counsel. The Court construes the instant motion as including such a request and hereby orders Wolf Logistics to obtain counsel, to file a substitution of attorney on or before ____________, 2025, and to deliver a courtesy copy thereof to Dept. 50 concurrently with the filing.

This matter is continued to ____________, 2025, at 10 a.m. in Dept. 50. If no substitution of attorney is filed prior thereto, the Court will grant the instant motion, strike Wolf Logistics’ answer, and enter default as to Wolf Logistics.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court continues Plaintiff’s motion to strike answer and enter default of Wolf Logistics to ____________, 2025, at 10 a.m. in Dept. 50.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  January 3, 2025                             

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court