Ferguson Enterprises, LLC v. Panda Rooter Inc., et al.

filed as of September 4, 2026 [] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of September 4, 2026 [] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS: Oscar Julio Martinez Nunez filed a complaint that says (only) "Maria Lopez Ran Me Over On Dec-29-2023 Causing Me An Injury For What I Needed An Ambulance To Get Carried To A Hospital For Medical Treatment."

Lopez answered, and then attempted to depose Nunez. Nunez declined to answer certain questions and declined to produce evidence demanded in Lopez's deposition notice. Lopez's counsel adjourned the deposition, "subject to court intervention." The reporter certified the transcript of those proceedings on May 11, 2026.

Lopez now moves for an order compelling Nunez to continue his deposition and to produce the documents specified in the deposition notice. Lopez also requests sanctions.

Having reviewed the deposition transcript, Lopez's motion is patently meritorious. But it's also patently untimely. A party must make a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, the statute on which Lopez relies, "no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.480, subd. (b).) The record of the deposition was complete when the reporter certified the transcript on May 11, 2026. Sixty days elapsed on July 10. Lopez filed her motion on July 21--11 days too late. Section 2025.480's 60-day deadline is mandatory. (Weinstein v. Blumber g (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 321.)

The Court therefore DENIES Lopez's motion. Lopez is to give notice.

August 10, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Eisenman/25 CASE NAME: Ferguson Enterprises, LLC v. Panda Rooter Inc., et al. COMP. FILED: 01-26-26 CASE NUMBER: 26CHLC04250 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION FOR FAILURE TO HAVE A CALIFORNIA-LICENSED ATTORNEY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ferguson Enterprises, LLC RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO STRIKE (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 435, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING: The Court DENIES Ferguson Enterprises, LLC 's motion to strike. On its own motion, the Court STRIKES Panda Rooter Inc.'s portion of the answer filed on May 6, 2026. Ferguson is to give notice. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 4, 2026 [] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of September 4, 2026 [] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS: Ferguson Enterprises, LLC sued Panda Rooter Inc. and Roberto Carlos Carpio for breach of contract and of personal guaranty. Panda Rooter and Carpio filed a joint answer as self-represented litigants. In May 2026, Ferguson filed and served a motion to strike Panda Rooter's answer because it is an unrepresented corporation. The case was then reassigned to this Court and Ferguson refiled the same motion to strike.

Motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings "on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 92, subd. (d).) Ferguson's request falls outside the bounds of permitted motions to strike in limited civil cases, so the Court DENIES it.

Ferguson is correct, though, that an entity or corporation must be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings and may not represent itself (either directly or through a non-lawyer agent) in litigation. (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 727, 729; Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103.) Panda Rooter is currently a self-represented corporation, has been on notice of this motion since May 2026, and has not filed an opposition or other document indicating it has since acquired counsel.

Thus, the Court, on its own motion, STRIKES Panda Rooter's portion of the answer filed on May 6, 2026. Ferguson is to give notice.