On 04/04/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by MAYRA GRANADOS against LA MICHOACANA 100 TRADICIONAL in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
LA MICHOACANA 100% TRADICIONAL
4/4/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet
4/4/2018: Summons - on Complaint
4/12/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
4/4/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory TransferRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Mayra Granados (Plaintiff); As to: La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/09/18; Service Cost: 71.55; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Mayra Granados (Plaintiff); As to: La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Mayra Granados (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 18STLC05146 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff Mayra Granados’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED.
On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff Mayra Granados (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide a correct itemized statement to employee, unfair business practices, failure to pay minimum wage, and breach of written contract against Defendant La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (“Defendant”). On June 8, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer.
On September 30, 2018, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney form indicating that it was no longer being represented by attorney Sergio Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) and that it was now representing itself. (9/30/18 Substitution of Attorney.)
A non-jury trial was scheduled for October 2, 2019. During the hearing, Defendant made an oral request to continue the hearing to allow him to obtain legal representation. (10/2/19 Minute Order.) The Court granted Defendant’s request and set an OSC re: Status of Defendant Obtaining Counsel for December 16, 2019. (Id.)
On December 16, 2019, Rodriguez specially appeared and indicated that Defendant had rehired him. (12/16/19 Minute Order.) The Court re-scheduled trial for September 8, 2020 and ordered Defendant to file its substitution of attorney form within 30 days of the order. (Id.) To date, Defendant has not filed a substitution of attorney.
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
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).)
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Answer should be stricken and default should be entered because it is unrepresented and corporations cannot represent themselves in court. (Mot., p. 3:18-23.) Defendant is correct that a corporation may appear in an action only through counsel. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.) However, here, there is no indication that Defendant is a corporation. Defendant was simply sued as “La Michoacana 100% Tradicional.” The Complaint does not identify Defendant as a corporation nor does its trade name indicate it is one. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant is a corporation or strike its Answer and enter default.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mayra Granados’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.