Case Name: Iritani, et al. v. Legacy Property Group, Inc.
Case No.: 19CV347383

On May 2, 2019, plaintiffs Kevin G. Iritani, Steven A. Hagel, Anthony G. Coluccio and Daniel L. Marks (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against defendant Legacy Property Group, Inc. (“Defendant”), asserting causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith retention of security deposit. On June 17, 2019, Defendant filed an answer, stating that it was “self-represented.” On July 3, 2019, Plaintiffs requested entry of default; however, default was not entered because Defendant filed an answer. Plaintiffs move to strike the answer on the ground that it is not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state because Defendant, as a corporation, may not represent itself and must be represented by an attorney, and also because Defendant is a suspended corporation.

In opposition, an entity identifying itself as “Legal Property Group” filed a “response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer,” stating:

Legacy Property Group is a Sole Proprietor not a Corporation as Plaintiff has suggested. We have been a licensed company active as of 11/16/2015 DBA #01518929 documents are attached.

Fictitious Business names are as follows:
Legacy Property Group
Legacy Property Management of Silicon Valley

The business license attached to the opposition indicates that the business owner of Legal Property Group is Derrick McQuade. The opposition is signed by “Regina Handa” of “Marks, Golia & Pinto, LLP.” Subsequently, after the reply pointed out that Regina Handa does not work for the firm of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Legacy Property Group filed two more “responses,” now signed by “Regina Handa Property Manager.”

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the certificate of status from the State of California Secretary of State which indicates that Defendant’s status is indeed suspended. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code § 452, subds.(c), (h).)

As Plaintiff asserts, “Legal Property Group, Sole Proprietor” is not the entity that filed the answer. Thus, the purported opposition is apparently filed by a separate entity than the business entity that the California Secretary of State has determined is suspended.

“Legal Property Group, Sole Proprietor” asserts that it has “been a licensed company active as of 11/16/2015.” In support of this assertion, Legal Property Group attaches a municipal business license and a printout from the California Department of Real Estate showing that Derrick Kawshi McQuade dba Legacy Property Group is licensed as a broker. However, licensure by the California Department of Real Estate and suspension of a corporation pursuant to the direction of the Franchise Tax Board and Secretary of State, are separate matters. “[A] suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.” (Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1365.) As Plaintiff argues, this is a proper ground for a motion to strike the answer.

Additionally, as Plaintiff argues, Legacy Property Group, Inc. may not represent itself. (See Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729 (stating that “[a] corporation cannot represent itself in court, either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney”); see also CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (stating that “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… [i]t must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record”); see also Himmel v. City Council of Burlingame (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 97, 100 (stating that “[a] corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona”).) Similarly, Regina Handa may not represent any other person and may not hold herself out to be an attorney as the unauthorized practice of law is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6126, subd. (a); see also Russell v. Dopp (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 765, 775 (stating that “an unlicensed person cannot appear in court for another person”).) This is an additional basis to strike the answer.

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer is GRANTED with 90 days leave to amend to allow Defendant to retain an attorney. Defendant shall not file another answer without proper representation by a licensed attorney and to cure the corporate suspension. Defendant’s answer, filed on June 17, 2019, is hereby stricken. Plaintiffs shall not seek entry of default until after the expiration of the 90 days.

The Court will prepare the Order.