Motion to strike
sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)
Here, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden identifying any harm threatened by disclosure. The specific information sought to be sealed is already publicly available. Exhibits D, E and G have been filed in federal court, and Plaintiff concedes the information has also been disclosed in pleadings filed in this court, including in the declaration of Ann Sanz and OSI’s evidentiary objections to the Ann Sanz declaration. (ROA 46, 52; see Motion, p. 6.) There is no evidence Plaintiff ever filed a motion to seal those documents. As such, the Court finds no prejudice to Plaintiff if the records are not sealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(3).) The motion is therefore DENIED.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling. 6 Rojas v. Plaintiff Elizabeth Rojas’ unopposed motion to strike the answer of Alamirad defendant Alamarid Dental Corp. is GRANTED, with 30 days’ leave Dental Corp to amend.
Defendant Farzan Alamarid (Alamarid) filed the answer “individually and on behalf of Alamarid Dental Corp.” (ROA 51.) However, “a corporation must be represented in court by an attorney.” (Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564.) A corporate officer, shareholder, or employee who is not a licensed attorney may not file pleadings or otherwise appear for the corporation. (Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-731.) Alamirad did not file the answer as counsel of record for Alamirad Dental Corp. and instead filed the pleading in pro per. The motion to strike is therefore granted. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435.) Defendant shall have 30 days’ leave to amend. (CLD Construction, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1152 [pleading filed by self-represented corporation is a curable defect].)
Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling. 7 Salemi v. The motion for attorneys’ fees filed by defendants Kemp Ipsen and Pappas Maria Elena Ipsen (collectively, Ipsen Defendants) is GRANTED.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In an action to enforce a contract authorizing an award of fees and costs to one party, the party “prevailing on the contract” is entitled to reasonable fees in accordance with Civil Code section 1717. (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 615–617; Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 698, 706– 707.) “[T]he party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1).)
“If a contractual attorney fee provision is phrased broadly enough...it may support an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action alleging both contract and tort claims[.]” (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 608; see also, Thompson v. Miller (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 327, 336.)