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

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.