HIGH INTEGRITY RACK AND SHELVING, LLC VS TAOMORE SUPPLY CHAIN LTD

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05784    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., August 26, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: ­­­­­Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC v. Taomore Supply Chain Ltd.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05784 COMP. FILED: 06-18-19

NOTICE: NO DISC. C/O: 11-15-20

PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §435)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED. However, the Court sets an OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant for October 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

I. Background

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Taomore Supply Chain Ltd. (“Defendant”). On August 21, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer, which appears to have been filed by one of its members, in pro per.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Complaint (the “Motion”). At the initial hearing on February 6, 2020, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s Motion was not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (2/6/20 Minute Order.) The hearing was continued to allow Plaintiff to file a declaration attesting to such efforts. (Id.) On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration.

To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition.

II. Legal Standard

A motion to strike may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435 and 436, which authorize a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions to strike may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) A motion to strike is used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from judicially noticed matter but that are not grounds for a demurrer. (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also City & County of San Francisco v. Strahlendorf (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1913 (motion may not be based on a party's declaration or factual representations made by counsel in the motion papers).)

However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the [pleading].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) This may fall under matters that are “improper” or “not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 436, subd. (a)-(b).)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s Answer because it was filed in pro per, not by an attorney as required for corporate entities. (Mot., p. 3:8-12.)

1. Service of Moving & Supplemental Papers

The Court first addresses concerns regarding the moving papers. Plaintiff’s proof of service demonstrates that the Notice of Motion and Motion were served on Defendant at “13941 Norton Ave., Chino, CA 91710.” (Mot., Proof of Service.) However, the address on Defendant’s Answer is “13941 Norton Ave., Suite C, Chino, CA 91710.” (See Answer.) (Emphasis added.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 requires any papers served by mail to be “addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).) Thus, the Court cannot find Defendant was properly served with this Motion.

B. Meet and Confer Efforts

At the previous hearing, the Court specifically ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer in person or by telephone with Defendant regarding the instant Motion. (2/6/20 Minute Order.) Despite this order, Defendant did not meet and confer with Defendant in person or by telephone; instead, Plaintiff’s counsel chose to send Defendant a meet and confer letter dated February 19, 2020, via US priority mail. (3/9/20 Supp. Chen Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 2.) Notably, Plaintiff mailed the meet and confer letter to “13941 Norton Ave., Suite A, Chino, CA 91710,” not Suite C as specified in Defendant’s Answer (Id., Proof of Service.) (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has properly met and conferred with Defendant.

However, based on the issues presented in the moving papers, the Court notes the following.

C. Legal Representation for Entities Required

A corporation may not appear in court except through licensed counsel. Since the passage of the State Bar Act in 1927, persons may represent their own interests in legal proceedings, but may not represent the interests of another unless they are active members of the State Bar. [Citation.]” (Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618, 621.) An entity must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation, as such an act would be the unauthorized practice of law. (See e.g. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101) (corporation); Albion River Watershed Protection Ass’n v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 34, 37 (unincorporated association); Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1518, 1519-20 (trustee for trust).

As noted above, Plaintiff has not demonstrated it gave Defendant proper notice of this Motion, did not properly meet and confer with Defendant, and did not mail its meet and confer letter to Defendant at the correct address. Thus, the Court cannot grant this Motion.

However, because Defendant, as a corporate entity, may not appear in this action except through licensed counsel, its Answer should be stricken. The Court is permitted to strike a pleading on its own motion when it is not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) However, to provide Defendant an opportunity to seek and obtain counsel, the Court sets an OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant for October 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED. However, the Court sets an OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant for October 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice at the correct address.

Case Number: 19STLC05784    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 25

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike is CONTINUED TO APRIL 14, 2020 AT 10:30 A.M in DEPT. 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Plaintiff is to file a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Motion to Strike being placed off calendar or denied.

I. Background

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Taomore Supply Chain Ltd. (“Defendant”). On August 21, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer, which appears to have been filed by one of its members, in pro per.

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Complaint (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s Answer because it appears it was not filed by an attorney as required for entities. (Mot., p. 8-9.)

1. Failure to Meet and Confer

Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 provides that, “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for purposes of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Motion is not accompanied by a declaration stating the parties met and conferred in person or by telephone, or that there was an attempt to do so. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and to file a supplemental declaration attesting to such efforts.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike is CONTINUED TO APRIL 14, 2020, AT 10:30 A.M. in DEPT. 25, SRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Plaintiff is to file a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. Failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the Motion to Strike being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.