MAYRA QUIJADA VS MIRANDA AUTO SALES, INC.,, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13847    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE

(CCP § 418.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Miranda Auto Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is HEREBY STRUCK AND PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Quash service of Summons and Complaint on the grounds that service was not on an authorized agent, officer, president, chief executive officer, or other head of the corporation, vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, or a general manager.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 16, 2019.

ANALYSIS:

On November 5, 2018, Plaintiff Mayra Quijada (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and related claims against Defendants Miranda Auto Sales, Inc. (“Defendant MAS”), House of Finance Corp., and International Fidelity Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed proof of service of the Summons and Complaint as to Defendant MAS on January 4, 2019. On May 21, 2019, the Court entered default against Defendant MAS pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. Defendant MAS filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (“the Motion”) on July 11, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion is defective in two respects. First, the Motion is made by Defendant MAS through its president, Raymundo Miranda. (Motion, pp. 1, 4.) A corporation, however, 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).

Second, Defendant MAS has been in default since May 21, 2019 and can make no request to the Court other than to vacate the entry of default. “Under Code of Civil Procedure section 585 (judgment on default), the entry of a default terminates a defendant's rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either the default is set aside or a default judgment is entered. A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action.” (People v. One 1986 Toyota Pickup (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 254, 259.) Defendant MAS, therefore, has no right to move to quash service of the Summons and Complaint until the entry of default is vacated.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Miranda Auto Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint is HEREBY STRUCK AND PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Court clerk to give notice.