MOTA INC., A CORPORATION vs NORCAL MEDICINE MAN, LLC

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Mota Inc.’s motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §128(a)(5) to “Declare

25CV005272: MOTA INC., A CORPORATION vs NORCAL MEDICINE MAN, LLC 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Declare Def's Answer Void and for Entry of Default in Department 16D

Defendant’s Answer Void and for Entry of Default” is DENIED as follows.

Plaintiff commenced this action of 3/5/2025 in an attempt to collect a debt allegedly owed by defendant NorCal Medicine Man, LLC. On 4/25/2025, John Main signed and filed an answer to complaint on behalf of “NorCal Medicine Man” and apparently also himself (despite not being named in the complaint as a defendant).

Plaintiff now moves pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure §128(a)(5) to have “this Court issue an order striking the Answer/General Denial filed by Defendant NORCAL MEDICINE MAN, LLC on or about April 25, 2025, on the following grounds”:

1. The Answer was filed by a non-attorney representative of a limited liability company, in violation of California law, which requires that a limited liability company appear in court only through a licensed attorney; and 2. Defendant NORCAL MEDICINE MAN, LLC is currently suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”), and therefore lacks legal capacity to defend this action or take any affirmative steps in this litigation. (Not. of Mot., p.2:4-14.)

Although Code of Civil Procedure §128(a)(5) authorizes this Court “[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto,” nothing in this statutory provision on which this motion is explicitly based mandates this Court either to strike defendant’s answer on the grounds cited in the moving papers or to enter a default against defendant. Accordingly, coupled with the reasons cited below, this Court declines to strike defendant’s answer on such grounds and/or to enter a default against defendant.

First, plaintiff clearly could have filed at the time the answer was filed back in April 2025 a motion to strike such answer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §435 et seq. on the ground it was not signed by a licensed attorney representing the LLC defendant as otherwise required by California law but for unknown reasons, plaintiff failed to do so. Such a motion to strike the answer is now time-barred by virtue of §435(b)(1), providing that a motion to strike a pleading or a portion thereof may be made by “[a]ny party[] within the time allowed to respond to a pleading ” (Underline added for emphasis.)

California law generally provides that the time for a party “to respond to a pleading” by answer, demurrer or motion to quash service is 30 days (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§418.10; 430.40(a); 432.10), although §430.40(b) actually limits the time to demur to an answer to just 10 days. Since more than 30 days have passed since the subject answer was filed, this Court declines at this time to strike pursuant to §435 et seq. defendant’s answer on the ground it was not signed by a licensed attorney representing the LLC defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005272: MOTA INC., A CORPORATION vs NORCAL MEDICINE MAN, LLC 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Declare Def's Answer Void and for Entry of Default in Department 16D

While plaintiff is correct that a suspended LLC is not permitted to participate in legal proceedings, the moving papers here fail to demonstrate that the defendant LLC was in fact suspended at the time the answer to complaint was filed on 4/25/2025. Absent such proof, this Court is unable to conclude that the defendant LLC lacked the legal capacity to file such answer at that time and/or that the answer was therefore legally improper at the time of its filing. Thus, the Court finds that an order which effectively strikes retroactively the 4/25/2025 answer would appear to be neither appropriate nor justified under the circumstances here.

To the extent the moving papers here do appear to establish that the defendant LLC is currently suspended, the defendant LLC is not currently permitted to participate in these legal proceedings. Still, the Court declines at this time to strike the answer on such ground to the extent the LLC defendant remains free to seek and obtain a revivor upon payment of the outstanding taxes.

Having declined to strike defendant’s answer on the grounds cited for this motion, plaintiff’s additional request for an entry of default against the defendant LLC is likewise denied.

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s present motion to strike defendant’s answer to complaint and for entry of default is DENIED. However, the ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to seek by noticed motion other relief to which it may currently be entitled under California law given the circumstances here.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)