Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01179884, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Choczero, Inc.) Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer (Motion), filed on 8-29-22 under ROA 143, is to 1-10-23 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32.

“However, 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 (CLD).) “A motion to strike under section 435 et seq. is traditionally used to reach pleading defects that are not subject to demurrer. (5 Witkin, Cal. Proc., 4th ed., Pleading, § 960, p. 420.) Every pleading must be subscribed, i.e., signed, by the party or his or her attorney. (§ 446, subd. (a).) CLD's complaint was not subscribed by an attorney, nor did it otherwise indicate that CLD was represented by counsel. Therefore, if CLD's complaint was, as respondent asserts, incurably defective insofar as it was subscribed only by its president, the court could strike it.” (Id., at p. 1146.)  Therefore, the court has authority to strike a corporation’s pleading if the corporation is not represented by counsel.

Here, the Court granted Moving Counsel’s (William H. Strohmeyer) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel on 5-3-22. (5-3-22 Minute Order.) Based on the court’s file, it does not appear that Defendant (MLK Foods, LLC) has retained counsel to represent it since the court granted the Motion to Be Relieved.

Defendant shall promptly retain new counsel to represent it in this lawsuit. The court cautions Defendant that any failure to retain counsel could result in the court granting Plaintiff’s Motion and striking Defendant’s answer (filed on 12-21-21 under ROA No. 101). 

Plaintiff is to give notice.