Gibson Holdings, LLC v. Pure Rapscallion, Inc.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a clean version of the First Amended Complaint forthwith. Service is to be per Code.

Moving party is to give notice.

5. Delatorre v. Smith 25-14980567 Plaintiff Emily Betsabeth Delatorre’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Consolidation is CONTINUED.

Plaintiff requests to consolidate this matter with OCSC Case No. 2026- 01540797-CU-PA-CJC. In the present matter there is a motion to compel arbitration set for 08/13/26. The determination of whether the present Plaintiff should be compelled to participate in contractual arbitration would impact whether the two matters should be consolidated given the plaintiffs in the other matter do not appear to be covered by an arbitration agreement related to the underlying subject motor vehicle incident.

The court continues the hearing on the present motion to 09/03/26.

The court will give notice.

6.

(off calendar) 7. Gibson Holdings, LLC v. Pure Rapscallion, Inc. 24-1382 Before the court is an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Unrepresented Corporation Pure Rapscallion, Inc.’s Answer Should Not Be Struck (“OSC”), which was issued on 06/04/26.

On 10/02/25, the court granted Pure Rapscallion, Inc.’ (“RPI”) former counsel Clark Hill LLP’s motion to be relieved as counsel for RPI. (ROA 268.) Over the approximately nine months and one week since that hearing, RPI has not been represented by counsel or filed substitution of counsel. RPI was served notice of the OSC but did not file any responsive pleading or substitute in a new attorney. (ROA 334, 338.)

“A court on its own motion may ‘[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading’ and ‘[s]trike 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 of the court.’ (Code Civ.Proc., § 436.)” (Greshko v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 830.) A corporate entity cannot participate in a lawsuit on a pro per basis and must be represented by an attorney licensed in California, RPI’s lack of representation prohibits it from further participating in this lawsuit. (Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Co., Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 551, 564.)

As RPI has not been represented for an extended period, has not substituted in new counsel, and has not responded to the OSC, the court hereby strike’s RPI’s answer. (ROA 28, 36.)

The court directs plaintiff Gibson Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to file a request for entry of default and request for default judgment against RPI within the next 10-days.

Plaintiff to give notice.