Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00025858-CU-UD-CTL, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 20, 2023

09/21/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Unlawful Detainer - Commercial Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00025858-CU-UD-CTL EXPO PLAZA LP VS EMPIRE AUTO STYLING LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 09/15/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Order Striking Answer Expo Plaza v. Empire Auto Styling, Case No. 2023-25858 Sept. 21, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a commercial UD case. The complaint was filed June 21, 2023. It alleges breach of a written lease agreement between plaintiff, a limited partnership, and defendant, a limited liability company.

An answer was filed July 17, 2023 by Jose Ruiz, purporting to act on behalf of the defendant LLC in propria persona. ROA 8.

Plaintiff filed a trial setting request (ROA 20), which gave rise to a CMC. ROA 10. At the CMC, the court informed Mr. Ruiz that only a lawyer may defend the LLC. He indicated a willingness to discuss settlement, so with the consent of plaintiff's counsel, the court set today for a motion for an order striking the answer, and continued the CMC. ROA 16-19. As of this writing, defendant has not filed a substitution of attorney; nor have the parties filed a notice of settlement. Instead, plaintiff filed moving papers asking that the answer be stricken. ROA 30-33. There is no timely opposition.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. A corporation or LLC may not appear in propria persona. While a natural person who is not an attorney may appear in propria persona, a corporation or LLC is not a natural person and 'can neither practice law nor appear or act in person.' Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898. In court, a corporation or LLC can act only through licensed attorneys. 'A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney ... .' Id. There are three policy reasons for this rule. First, if a corporate agent who is not an attorney acts on behalf of the corporation in court proceedings, that individual would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.

Attorneys are required to be licensed so that the public is protected from being advised and represented by unqualified individuals. Russell v. Dopp (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 773. Second, the rule furthers the efficient administration of justice by assuring that qualified professionals, who, as officers of the court are Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022229  22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  EXPO PLAZA LP VS EMPIRE AUTO STYLING LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00025858-CU-UD-CTL subject to its control and to professional rules of conduct, present the corporation's case and aid the court in the resolution of the issues. Third, the rule helps maintain the distinction between the LLC and its principals. CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1146.

B. The court is mindful that Mr. Ruiz represents himself, and that the rules expressed above may not make sense to him. However, his status as a party appearing in propria persona (and seeking to represent an LLC in that same capacity) does not provide a basis for preferential consideration. 'A party proceeding in propria persona 'is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' [Citation.] Indeed, ''the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.'' [Citation.]' First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.

C. It has long been the rule that in an unlawful detainer case, the issues are restricted to the right to possession and past due rent. Lakeside Park Assn. v. Keithly, 43 Cal.App.2d 418, 422 (1941). A very limited range of affirmative defenses are allowed. See Nork v. Pacific Med. Enterprises, 73 Cal.App.3d 410, 413-14 (1977).

3. Discussion and Ruling.

The answer filed 7/17/23 (ROA 8) is ordered stricken. Plaintiff may now follow default procedures with regard to the LLC.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022229  22