Case Number: BC624457??? Hearing Date: October 20, 2016??? Dept: 53
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ? CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 53
CHRISTOPHER A. THOMAS, et al.;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMMUNITY LIFEPORT SYSTEMS, et al.;
Defendants.
Case No.: BC624457
Hearing Date: October 20, 2016
Time: 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:PLAINTIFFS? MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS? UNVERIFIED ANSWER TO THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER A. THOMAS and CODY R. FERREIRA?S Motion to Strike Defendants? unverified Answer is GRANTED and default is entered as to each defendant.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Christopher A. Thomas and Cody R. Ferreira (jointly ?Plaintiffs?) filed a verified Complaint on June 20, 2016 against Defendants Community Lifeport Systems (?CLS?), Jonathan A. Suarez (?Suarez?), and Sam L. Padilla (?Padilla?) (collectively ?Defendants?).
Defendants jointly filed an Answer to the Complaint on July 27, 2016. The Answer is unverified. The Answer is signed by Suarez on behalf of himself and CLS, and by Padilla on behalf of himself. Suarez and Padilla are non-lawyers in pro per.
Plaintiffs now move to strike the Answer on the grounds that (1) it is unverified; and (2) CLS and Padilla improperly appear through Suarez, who is not licensed to practice law. Plaintiffs also request that defaults be entered against all Defendants.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any ?irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading,? or any part of a pleading ?not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.? (CCP ?436.) ?The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.? (CCP ?437.)
DISCUSSION
?When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified.? (CCP ?446.) ?[T]he proper objection where a party fails to verify a pleading is a motion to strike which may be made only upon timely notice and provides for hearing and extension of time to answer.? (Perlman v. Mun. Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575 (internal citations omitted).)
?[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.? (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) A corporation?s failure to be represented by an attorney is a defect that may be corrected on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court. (Id. at 1149.)
Here, the Complaint is verified and the Answer is unverified. Further, Suarez is a non-attorney that cannot represent CLS, nor can he represent Padilla. Thus, the Answer is not filed in conformity with the law and is subject to being stricken.
In opposition, Defendants assert that they were ignorant of the law and they request that the Court allow them to remedy the problems with their Answer and the representation of CLS by a non-attorney.
In furtherance of justice and the policy that disputes should be resolved on their merits, at the last hearing on October 6, 2016, the Court provided Defendants an opportunity to cure the aforementioned problems prior to entry of default by continuing the hearing to October 20, 2016. Defendants have not cured the defects.
For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs? Reply Brief filed on October 13, 2016, Plaintiffs? motion to strike is granted. Default is entered as to each defendant. Plaintiffs are ordered to lodge a default package with proposed judgment within 45 days.
Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.
DATED: October 20, 2016
_____________________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge of the Superior Court