Case Number: BC710810 Hearing Date: February 06, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER; GRANTED

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff Maryam Moghadam filed this action against Defendant Redline Towing and Recovery, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a November 27, 2017 incident. Plaintiff alleges Defendant were repossessing her vehicle and gave her ten minutes to collect her things from the vehicle. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that when she attempted to gain access to her vehicle, Defendant blocked her with physical contact, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain injuries. (Ibid.)

On July 30, 2018, Jeremy Page, on behalf of Defendant, filed an Answer to the complaint. The Answer generally denies all allegations in the complaint. Mr. Page does not indicate on the Answer that he is an attorney.

Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendant’s Answer on the basis that Mr. Page is Defendant’s corporate officer who is not licensed counsel and California law holds that (1) a non-attorney cannot represent a corporation and (2) a corporation cannot be self-represented. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) Defendant did not file an opposition.

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation and Statements of Information is granted. (Ev. Code, § 452, subd. (h); RJN, Exhs. A-C.)

Service of Motion

Plaintiff did not serve this motion on Jeremy Page, who filed the Answer on behalf of Defendant. Serving the motion on Page would have been necessary if Page was an attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1015 [“in all cases where a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party….”].) But, as discussed below, Page is not licensed counsel. Plaintiff instead served the moving papers on Redline Towing and Recovery, Inc.’s agent for service of process, which would have been sufficient to complete service of summons and complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 416.10, subd. (a).) A review of Redline Towing’s Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State shows that Angela Cooper-Page is the agent for service of process. Because Plaintiff’s service of the motion would have been sufficient for serving the summons and complaint on Defendant, the Court finds the service is sufficient for giving Defendant notice of this motion.

Meet and Confer Requirement

Plaintiff did not file a declaration showing that the meet and confer requirement for a motion to strike has been satisfied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) Nevertheless, the Court considers the merits because the Court finds that a meet and confer process would not help to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections raised in this motion to strike.

Merits

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) A court may, under a motion made pursuant to section 435, “strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Id. at § 436, subd. (b).)

Although persons may represent themselves and their own interests regardless of State Bar membership, no one but an active member of the State Bar may practice law for another person in California. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 127.) While corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business, under 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. (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) A corporation “must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (Ibid.) The prohibition against unauthorized law practice is within the state’s police power and is designed to ensure that those performing legal services do so competently. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 127; see also CLD Const., Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1146.)

The “practice of law” is generally understood to mean “doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein throughout its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure.” (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 128.) This includes giving legal advice and preparing legal instruments and contracts whether or not in the course of litigation. (Ibid.)

Defendant is a corporation. (RJN, Exhs. A-C.) Defendant’s Answer was filed by Jeremy Page. On the face of the Answer, Mr. Page does not assert he is licensed counsel. Plaintiff states the California State Bar’s attorney index does not show “Jeremy Page” is a licensed attorney in California. (See also Pao Decl. ¶ 2.) And, even if Mr. Page is an attorney, Plaintiff also argues that Defendant filed its Answer in pro per, and therefore, the Answer was filed improperly.

Defendant’s Answer shows that it was filed by Defendant without a lawyer. Because a corporation cannot represent itself in court, Defendant’s Answer was not filed in conformity with the laws of this state. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

The Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES the Answer filed by Defendant on July 30, 2018. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this order to obtain legal counsel and file an answer.

Moving party to give notice.