CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC.

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 06/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 22 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8B OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Plaintiff Christian Carrizalez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike Defendants Nor Cal Taco, Inc. dba Chando’s Tacos Fair Oaks; Chando’s Roseville, Inc.; Chando’s Elk Grove, Inc.; and Chando’s Citrus Heights (“Defendants”) answer is ruled upon as follows.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on April 29, 2024 alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to compensate for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or pay premium wages in lieu thereof; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks or pay premium wages in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (5) failure to furnish accurate wages statements; (6) failure to reimburse for necessary business expense; (7) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law; and (8) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). (Complaint.) Defendants, through their then counsel of record, filed their answer on or about September 30, 2024. (Sutton Decl., ¶ 3.)

On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks or Pay Wages in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay Wages in Lieu Thereof; (5) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (6) Failure to Pay Wages Owed at Termination; (7) Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses; (8) Violation of Unfair Competition Law; (9) Violation of Child Labor Laws §§ 1391, et seq.; and (10) PAGA penalties. (FAC.) On October 14, 2025, Defendants filed an answer through their then counsel of record. (10-14-25 Answer.)

On October 31, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ Counsel’s application to be relieved as Counsel. (10-31-25 Minute Order.) Defendants have been without legal counsel since that time. (Sutton Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.)

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 06/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer in Department 8B

Discussion Plaintiff now moves to strike Defendants’ answer on the basis that Defendants, as corporate entities, cannot appear in this action without counsel and the Court has the authority to strike pleadings for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

Because a corporation is not a natural person, it cannot appear in an action in propria persona; it can only appear through counsel. (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) Nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director, or other employee who is not an attorney. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) A motion to strike is a proper vehicle to attack a pleading filed by a corporation that is not represented by counsel. (Id., at p. 1146.)

However, it does not follow that it is appropriate to strike Defendants’ Answer here. At the time Defendants filed their Answer, they were properly represented by counsel. Thus, the pleading was filed in conformity with the laws of this state. (See Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 436(b).) The fact that Defendants subsequently became unrepresented does not render the pleading subject to a motion to strike.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the “corporate Defendants’ failure to retain new counsel within the time ordered by this Court constitutes a failure to comply with a court order that warrants striking their Answer.” (Mot., p. 3:15-17.) However, the Court did not order Defendants to retain counsel, let alone retain counsel within a particular period of time. Instead, the Court’s October 31, 2025 Order advised that, as corporate entities, Defendants could not represent themselves. (See 10-31-25 Order.) Thus, the failure to retain counsel does not constitute a failure to comply with the Court’s orders or grounds for striking the answer.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. However, Plaintiff remains free to take appropriate action – including eventually seeking default judgment – to address Defendants’ nonparticipation.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CCP, § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008341: CARRIZALEZ vs NOR CAL TACO, INC., 06/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer in Department 8B

Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.