2017-00210387-CU-BC

BMO Harris Bank vs. US Cheeta Trucking, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike

Filed By: McKendrick, Robert V.

Plaintiff BMO Harris Bank’s Motion to Strike is unopposed but is denied.

Plaintiff seeks to strike defendant US Cheeta Trucking, Inc.’s Answer on the basis that it is no longer represented by counsel. On June 2, 2017, an Answer was filed on behalf of US Cheeta Trucking, Inc., then represented by its former counsel of record.

A corporation cannot appear in court without representation by counsel.

Although it has the capacity to sue and defend, a corporation is not a natural person, and therefore cannot appear in an action in propria persona. It can appear only through counsel. Caressa Camille, Inc. v Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101;Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.

Plaintiff has provided no authority that a motion to strike is a proper remedy to strike an Answer that is proper on its face. While it is true that defendant corporation cannot now appear in court without counsel, the Answer was filed by counsel of record and thus does not meet the requirements of a motion to strike.

A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the pleading. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,” or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) Plaintiff has not established any such defect in the Answer.