WSAV Artesia Owner IX, L.P. v. Quality Service Trucking, Inc.

(Compton Courthouse: Dept. A) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT A LAW AND MOTION RULINGS INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must: 1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and 3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u i/main.aspx’casetype=civil

to compel further responses to form interrogatories. The motion fails to comply with CRC rule 3.1345, subd. (c). by failing to provide the text of District's discovery responses verbatim in the supporting separate statement, instead summarizing the responses. It appears to the court that District has fully complied with the requests by serving compliant responses rendering the motion moot except as to sanctions. Based Plaintiff's failure to comply with rule 3.1345, the court declines to award plaintiff monetary sanctions. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 26CMCV01203 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Dept: A SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT WSAV ARTESIA OWNER IX, L.P, Plaintiff, vs. QUALITY SERVICE TRUCKING, INC., Defendant. |)))))))))))))))

) | CASE NO: 26CMCV01203 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER Dept. A DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. COMPLAINT FILED: 07/02/2026 TRIAL: None set | MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff WSAV Artesia Owner IX, L.P. RESPONDING PARTY: None 1.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff WSAV Artesia Owner IX, L.P. ("Plaintiff") alleges that it is the owner of the property located at 1217 West Artesia, Compton, California 90220 (the "Property"). Plaintiff alleges that on December 17, 2025, it leased the Property to defendant Quality Service Trucking, Inc. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges that in March 2026, Defendant failed to pay rent as required by the lease agreement, and continued to fail to pay rent or quit the Property despite service of a notice to pay rent or quit.

2. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of Defendant's answer in this action; Defendant's documents on file with the California Secretary of State; and the search results for "Alfredo Zeyala" on the State Bar of California's Attorney Search website. Pursuant to California Evidence Code 452, subd. (c), judicial notice may be taken of "[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States." Judicial notice may also be taken of records of any court of this state. (Id., subd. (d).) The court takes judicial notice of Defendant's answer in this action and of Defendant's documents on file with the California Secretary of State. The court declines to take judicial notice of the search results for "Alfredo Zeyala" on the State Bar of California's Attorney Search website.

3.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant's answer as having been filed by an unrepresented corporation and not having been served upon Plaintiff. Defendant does not oppose this motion. Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)¿The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.¿(Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) A corporation may not represent itself through a non-attorney agent in an action. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 730.) Here, Defendant is a corporation, according to the documents filed by Defendant with the California Secretary of State. Defendant's answer was filed by Alfredo Zeyala or Alfredo Zelaya, who did not provide a state bar number or a firm name, nor did he state that he was an attorney for any party.

Additionally, attorney Rachel A. Youkhehpaz declared that she contacted Defendant's former counsel on August 6, 2026, who informed her that they no longer represented Defendant. (Youkhehpaz Decl., Ex. A.) Based on this, it appears to the court that Defendant filed its answer as an unrepresented corporation, which is impermissible. The court will therefore grant Defendant's motion to strike Defendant's answer.

4.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike the answer. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 8, 2026 Hon. Elizabeth L. Bradley Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->