DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
2023-01323615·orange·Civil·Contract
GRANTED

PCR RESTORATION, INC. VS. RUMBA ROOM LIVE ANAHEIM, LLC

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
C32
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Motion to Strike

Parties

PlaintiffPCR RESTORATION, INC.
DefendantRUMBA ROOM LIVE ANAHEIM, LLC

Ruling

The Court finds a request for every text message made for a period of over 9 months to or from Plaintiff’s personal cell phone with no limitation is overly broad. Plaintiff further contends he used his personal cell from May 2023 through the present to communicate via text message private, personal communications with his family, his friends, and multiple other individuals and entities unrelated to a business purpose as well as with his counsel. (Evans Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) As such, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated a “threatened intrusion” onto his right to privacy based on the documents requested.

Given no opposition, Allview has not shown why the breadth of the information sought is relevant (e.g., all text messages regardless of the recipient/sender), nor demonstrated that legitimate and important countervailing interests of the requested disclosure outweigh Plaintiff’s privacy interest in his communications, both personal and privileged.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to quash as to request numbers 2, 6, 10, and 14 only.

5. PCR RESTORATION, INC. MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER VS. RUMBA ROOM LIVE ANAHEIM, LLC Plaintiff PRC Restoration, Inc.’s motion to strike the answer and enter

default of Defendant Rumba Room Live Anaheim, LLC is GRANTED.

“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.” (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101; CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (CLD).)

The Court granted Defendant counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record on 6-3-25 and Defendant’s counsel served the signed Order granting the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel on Defendant on 6/11/25. (ROA 59, 70.) Since the Order was entered in June 2025, Plaintiff has communicated via email with Defendant’s non-attorney representative, Ramon Chavez, who claims Defendant has hired counsel but has refused to provide any contact information. (Serota Decl., ¶ 5.) No new counsel has appeared in this case on behalf of Defendant.

Accordingly, Rumba Room Live Anaheim, LLC’s Answer is stricken and default is entered against Rumba Room Live Anaheim, LLC.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share