Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 2OSTV08881, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 2OSTV08881    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Chin Well Fasteners (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant CYM Industrial Corp., a/k/a Chieh Young Metal Industrial Corp. on March 4, 2020.

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against CYM Industrial Corp. and Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp (“Chiieh Yung”), asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, and (2) quasi-contract/restitution. On June 28, 2021, Chiieh Yung filed its answer to the FAC. 

On November 18, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the motion by counsel for Chiieh Yung (Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP and Alex H. Aharonian) to be relieved as counsel. On November 29, 2021, Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP filed and served a notice of entry of the Court’s orders granting the motion to be relieved as counsel. The proof of service filed with the notice indicates that such notice was served on Chiieh Yung. 

Since Chiieh Yung’s counsel’s withdrawal, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel has received any communication from Chiieh Yung or anyone purporting to act on its behalf. (Kithas Decl., ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff now moves for an order striking Chiieh Yung’s answer to the FAC and entering default against Chiieh Yung.[1] 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.)

“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.) As set forth above, on November 18, 2021, the Court granted the motion by counsel for Chiieh Yung to be relieved as counsel. Plaintiff indicates that since Chiieh Yung’s counsel’s withdrawal, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel has received any communication from Chiieh Yung or anyone purporting to act on its behalf. (Kithas Decl., ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff seeks an order both striking Chiieh Yung’s answer and entering default against Chiieh Yung. Plaintiff cites to CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1148, fn. 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.” In its June 6, 2022 Order concerning the instant motion, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not previously requested such an order from the Court and the Court had not sua sponte issued an order for Chiieh Yung to obtain counsel. The Court construed the subject motion as including such a request and ordered Chiieh Yung to obtain counsel, to file a substitution of counsel on or before July 1, 2022, and to deliver a courtesy copy thereof to Dept. 50 concurrently with the filing. This matter was continued to July 6, 2022, and then to August 4, 2022. No substitution was filed prior to this hearing; therefore, the Court grants this motion, strikes the Answer, and enters default as to Chiieh Yung.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer filed by Chiieh Yung in this case and enters default against Chiieh Yung. The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to have already filed a default judgment package on July 25, 2022. The hearing thereon is set on September 1, 2022 at 10 a.m. in Dept. 50. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  August 4, 2022                              

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court