Fonseca v. Unlimited Communications, Inc.

Case: Fonseca v. Unlimited Communications, Inc. Case No. CV2023-2246 Hearing Date: July 8, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

The Court notes that plaintiff Juan Fonseca failed to establish attempts to meet and confer prior to filing this motion, as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5; see generally Gunning decl.) Nonetheless, the Court cannot deny the motion on this ground. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(4); see Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355.)

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to strike defendant’s answer is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436.) Plaintiff had until August 19, 2024, to serve and file a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 430.40, subd. (b).) Additionally, the Court finds defendant Unlimited Communications, Inc. was represented by counsel at the time it filed its answer on August 7, 2024. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Complaint, p. 13.) Although a corporate defendant must be represented by counsel, Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436 are not a basis upon which to grant a motion to strike a corporate defendants answer, when such corporate defendant was represented by counsel at the time it filed its answer and has not attempted to appear in court without representation by an attorney. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon, (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1149