Case Number: SC127594 Hearing Date: August 22, 2018 Dept: M

CASE NAME: BERCHTOLD v. 883 LINDA FLORA DR. LLC

CASE NUMBER: SC127594 COMPLAINT FILED: 5/26/17

HEARING DATE: 8/22/18

TRIAL DATE: None Set

NOTICE: OK

____________________________________________________________________________

MOTION: Cross-Defendant Brad Fults’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

HELD: GRANTED Subject to OSC

TENTATIVE RULING

Background

This action arises out of a breach of a promissory note.

Merits

Cross-Defendant Brad Fults moves for judgment on the pleadings to Cross-Complainant The Richardson Development, Inc.’s Cross-Complaint (“Richardson”). Cross-Defendants Brewster Marble Co., Inc., Loewen Window Center of Los Angeles Inc., and Hurtado’s Quality Finished Carpentry join in the motion. No opposition was filed.

The motion is based on the grounds that Cross-Complainant Richardson, a corporation, is currently unrepresented by counsel and its corporate status is suspended.

With limited exceptions not applicable here, a corporation, as an artificial entity created by law, cannot represent itself in propria persona. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 730; CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.)

Moreover, while generally a corporation has the capacity to sue under California law (see Corp. Code, § 207 [corporation generally has “all of the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business activities”].), when a corporation’s status is suspended (for example for failing to pay taxes or to file tax return), a corporation may not prosecute or defend an action and may not appeal from an adverse judgment in an action. (See Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343.)

The court agrees that Richardson’s pro per status and suspended corporate status render it unable to prosecute or otherwise participate in this action.

However, when a corporation’s suspended status “comes to light during litigation, the normal practice is for the trial court to permit a short continuance to enable the suspended corporation to effect reinstatement (by paying back taxes, interest and penalties) to defend itself in court. [Citation.]” (Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1366.)

This Court will provide Richardson with this opportunity to remediate the above by GRANTING the motion but staying entry of judgment subject to an Order to Show Cause Why Judgment Should Not Be Entered. The OSC is set for Sept. _______, 2018. If Richardson has not retained counsel and reinstated its corporate status by that time, Judgment on its cross-complaint will be entered as final.

NOTICE

Movant Brad Fults shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof.