DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV14988·la·Civil·Breach of Contract
Hearing in about 4 hoursGRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Green Garden, Inc., et al.

Motion to Strike

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
529
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffCreditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
DefendantGreen Garden, Inc.
DefendantGeorge Chavez

Ruling

for Murphy's affirmative claims, including the new information disclosed for the first time in discovery. The court also notes Palmdale contends the court need not adjudicate the document request as the parties can address any remaining document-production dispute through the procedures applicable to such discovery. As such, the court grants the motion as to the second deposition only. Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendant City of Palmdale's Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Cross-Complainant JJ Murphy is GRANTED.

ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., vs GREEN GARDEN, INC., et al. motion to strike answer Date of Hearing: September 1, 2026 Trial Date: None set. Department: 529 Case No.: 26STCV14988 Moving Party: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. Responding Party: No opposition.

BACKGROUND On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. filed a complaint against Green Garden, Inc. aka Green Garden Inc., George Chavez aka George Medina Chavez aka George M Chavez for breach of contract and personal guaranty.

[Tentative] Ruling Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves the court for an order striking the answer of Defendant Green Garden, Inc. aka Green Garden Inc. on the grounds that Defendant is a corporation and is attempting to appear in this action in propria persona in violation of the laws of the state of California and therefore, the court must strike Defendant's answer. "[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation [or a limited liability company], unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record." (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)

The rationale for this rule is that "a corporation, as an artificial entity created by law, can only act in its affairs through its natural person agents and representatives. If the corporate agent who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation in court proceedings, e.g., an officer or director, is not an attorney, that person would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law." (Id. at p. 1146.) For this reason, a corporation nor a limited liability company cannot file a pleading in propria persona.¿¿

On July 14, 2025, Defendant Green Garden, Inc. aka George Medina Chavez filed an answer in properia persona. Because a corporation may not represent itself, the court grants Plaintiff's motion to strike. A court may strike out all or any part of any answer or pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state. (CCP Sec. 436(b).)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The court notes "it is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation's [or an LLC's] failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court" and for this reason, the court grants the motion with leave to amend. (CLD Construction, Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1149.) "[T]he court retains authority to dismiss an action if an unrepresented corporation does not obtain counsel within reasonable time. (Id. at p. 1150.) The court gives Defendant 60 days leave to seek representation from licensed counsel, otherwise, the court will enter default against Defendant. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share