This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2019 at 22:32:25 (UTC).

MAYRA GRANADOS VS LA MICHOACANA 100% TRADICIONAL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5146

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GRANADOS MAYRA

Defendant

LA MICHOACANA 100% TRADICIONAL

 

Court Documents

Complaint

4/4/2018: Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/4/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - on Complaint

4/4/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/12/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Answer

6/8/2018: Answer

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/4/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/07/2021
  • 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 Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • 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: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Mayra Granados (Plaintiff); As to: La Michoacana 100% Tradicional (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Mayra Granados (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • 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 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC05146    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO STRIKE

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mayra Granados’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

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.

  1. 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).)

  1. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Motion is procedurally defective. It is not brought within the time to respond to an Answer, which is 10 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.40 subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1).) It is also not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 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.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mayra Granados’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.