Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 18VECV00070, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18VECV00070    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: W

biggs v. sanders, et al.

MOTION to compel further responses

Date of Hearing:        September 14, 2022             Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:              W                                            Case No.:        18VECV00070

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Samuel R. Biggs, as assignee of Urban Settlement Services, LLC

Responding Party:     No Opposition filed.  

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges Defendants - as manager, director, and officer of Urban Settlement Services, LLC dba Urban Lending Solutions (“USS”) and USS Subsidiaries - failed to devote sufficient time, manager operations, and exercise sound business judgment of USS. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants failed to act in the best interests of the companies as well as permitted excessive depletion of earnings and diversion of funds. Plaintiff is the Assignee for Benefit of Creditors as to Urban Settlement Solutions, LLC.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 19, 2018 against Defendants asserting causes of action for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Corporate Waste; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers; (5) Conversion; and (6) Breach of Common Law Duty to Creditors.

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff named UrbanLink Corporation as Doe 1.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses of Defendant UrbanLink Corporation, Inc. to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant UrbanLink Corporation’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One on the grounds the Form Interrogatories are relevant to the subject matter and UrbanLink failed to provide substantive responses to the Form Interrogatories identified herein. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $758.00 against UrbanLink Corporation for the attorneys' time in preparing and filing this motion and supporting documents, for appearing at the hearing on the motion and the filing fee.

On July 21, 2022, the Court continued this motion as Defendant UrbanLink was unrepresented.

Under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)

The Court notes there is an OSC set regarding UrbanLink’s failure to obtain counsel set for the same date.

If Urbanlink appears with counsel, the court will entertain on oral request to continue the motion to permit sufficient time for Urbanlink to prepare an opposition.  If Urbanlink fails to appear, the court will grant the motion as unopposed and order Urbanlink to provide written responses without objection and to pay a sanction of $758 within thirty days.