Rincon vs. Ameriestate Legal Plan, Inc.

Here, in Pham’s opposition, Pham admits that “Plaintiff identifies no contractual provision, statutory authority, or other applicable basis entitling recovery of these claimed appellate consultation fees.” (Opposition, 5:16-17). As such, without identifying the contractual or statutory authority to recover legal fees, Pham has not met his burden of justifying recovery of this cost.

Further, Pham contends that the $800 in travel and hotel costs should be recoverable under the court’s discretionary power. However, Pham has not provided any evidentiary support to establish that these costs were actually incurred.

For these reasons, the motion is granted and Pham’s costs on appeal are taxed by $4,300.

Pham shall be awarded total costs in the amount of $502.20.

Defendants/Appellants to give notice.

10 Rincon vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Ameriestate Legal Plan, Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel of Record Inc. Lawrence Borys and Anna Novruzyan move to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant AmeriEstate Legal Plan, Inc. The motion is GRANTED. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.

In Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, the court explained that: “A corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. Out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives and in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys. A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona. (Citations omitted.)” (Id. at 898; see also Iannaccone v. Law (2nd Cir. 1998) 142 F.3d 553, 559 (holding that administrator of estate may not appear pro se on behalf of estate).)

Nevertheless, the ban on corporate self-representation does not prevent a court from granting a motion to withdraw as attorney of record even if it leaves the corporation without representation. (Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504 [“An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation”].) “Such an order puts pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important