DAVIDSON LISA VS WOODLAND HILLS DELI MARKET, CORP.
Case Summary
On 03/02/2020 DAVIDSON LISA filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against WOODLAND HILLS DELI MARKET, CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******1991
-
Filing Date:
03/02/2020
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Spring Street Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Judge
SERENA R. MURILLO
Party Details
Plaintiff
LISA DAVIDSON
Defendant
WOODLAND HILLS DELI MARKET CORP.
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorney
DAVIDSON PERRIN
Court Documents
5/6/2020: Answer - Answer
5/6/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
6/30/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
3/2/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
3/2/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/2/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
3/2/2020: Complaint - Complaint
3/2/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Docket Entries
- 03/06/2023
-
Hearing03/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
- 08/30/2021
-
Hearing08/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
- 06/30/2020
-
DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff)
- 05/06/2020
-
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)
- 05/06/2020
-
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant); As to: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No
- 05/06/2020
-
DocketApplication for Mandatory Evaluation Conference Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 55.545; Filed by: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/06/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff); As to: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff)
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff); As to: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
- 03/02/2020
-
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: 20STLC01991 Hearing Date: October 19, 2020 Dept: 26
Davidson v. Woodland Hills Deli Market Corp., et
al. MOTION TO
STRIKE (CCP §§ 435, et
seq., 92) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Lisa Davidson’s Motion
to Strike the Answer is DENIED. DEFENDANT WOODLAND HILLS DELI MARKET CORP. IS
ORDERED TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER THROUGH LEGAL COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE
OF THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Lisa Davidson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant Woodland
Hills Deli Market Corporation (“Defendant”) on March 2, 2020. On May 6, 2020,
Defendant filed an Answer in pro se. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Strike Answer on June 30, 2020. Defendant filed a substitution of attorney on September
16, 2020 and an opposition to the Motion on October 2, 2020. The Motion to Strike is brought pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 436 on the grounds that Defendant, despite being a
corporation, was not represented by an attorney at the time the Answer was
filed. Motions to strike in courts of limited jurisdiction, however, may only
challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not
supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 92,
subd. (d).) As the request to strike the Answer raised by this Motion does not
pertain to whether the damages alleged or relief sought are supported by the
allegations, it cannot be raised in this Court. It is black
letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court. (Clean Air
Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d
576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978)
21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as
separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated
associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at
578.) Defendant should not have filed the Answer without proper legal
representation, but has corrected its lack of legal representation as
demonstrated by the Substitution of Attorney filed on September 16, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike the Answer is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to file an Amended Answer
through legal counsel within 20 days’ service of this order. The Court declines to rule on
Defendant’s arguments in opposition asking to strike the Complaint at this
time. Any such request may be made by noticed motion. Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases