This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2020 at 01:50:37 (UTC).

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 Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1991

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • 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

Answer - Answer

5/6/2020: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

5/6/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

6/30/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/2/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/2/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/2/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

3/2/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2020
  • DocketApplication for Mandatory Evaluation Conference Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 55.545; Filed by: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff); As to: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Davidson Lisa (Plaintiff); As to: Woodland Hills Deli Market, Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DAVIDSON PERRIN