Case Number: BC597432 Hearing Date: March 20, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Christopher Bory v. Super Cycles & Scooters, LLC (BC597432)

MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT SUPER CYCLES & SCOOTERS, LLC

Moving Party: Plaintiff Christopher Bory

Respondent: Defendant Super Cycles & Scooters, LLC

POS: Moving OK; Response by defendant untimely and served by regular mail contrary to CCP § 1005(b) and (c)

Plaintiff Christopher Bory (“plaintiff”) purchased a new Super Lithium 1500 Brushless Scooter (“scooter”) from Defendant Super Cycles & Scooters, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that his scooter malfunctioned when he was out on a trial run and caused him to sustain serious injuries. The complaint, filed on 10/8/15, asserts a cause of action for: Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect.

On 10/21/16, this matter was transferred from Department 93 (personal injury hub) to this department. A Trial Setting Conference is set for 3/15/18.

Plaintiff Christopher Bory (“plaintiff”) moves the court for an order, per CCP §§ 435-437, striking out Defendant Super Cycles & Scooters, LLC’s (“defendant”) answer, on the basis that defendant is an LLC and must be represented by an active member of the CA State Bar.

Defendant was represented by attorney Natalie Panossian-Bassler (“Panossian-Bassler”) until 9/29/17, when it filed a “Substitution of Attorney.” It now purports to be self-represented. Although Panossian-Bassler has since made appearances on 10/4/17 and 12/4/17 on defendant’s behalf, there is no indication that she has formally substituted back into this matter as defendant’s counsel. Nor is there any indication that defendant has retained new counsel to represent it in this action.

“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…” CCP § 435(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) 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 or the court.” CCP § 436.

“As a general rule, it is well established in California that a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727, 729; Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199; Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898; see also Van Gundy v. Camelot Resorts, Inc. (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d Supp. 29, 31).” Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101. The same logic would appear to apply to an entity established as a limited liability company.

Defendant filed an untimely response on 3/9/18 along with a Substitution of Attorney form indicating that attorney Panossian-Bassler is once again representing defendant. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice.