Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 23-1324162, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed “Motion to Strike Answer of Lark Int’l, Inc.,” filed on 7/6/23 by Plaintiff Ocean Blue Express, Inc., is GRANTED IN PART.

The Motion correctly asserts that a corporate entity such as Lark Int’l, Inc. (“Lark”) must be represented in court by an attorney. (Rogers v. Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318; Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564; Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101; Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727.)  The Answer filed on behalf of Lark on 6/12/23, without an attorney, is therefore defective, and is stricken.  However,  an entity should be given an opportunity to cure the defect.  (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1149.)  The Court will therefore allow Lark to have 15 days from the date of service of notice of this ruling to cure the defect, by filing a response to the Complaint through counsel. If Lark fails to do so, Plaintiff may thereafter seek Lark’s default.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice, filed as ROA 17, is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(c), as to the existence of the records, but not as to the truth of facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.