BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC in Department 16D

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Plaintiff in pro per Gregory Burke’s motion to strike defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s Answer is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to contact opposing party and advise opposing party of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

The opposition filed by defendant CM Vantage Specialty Insurance Company fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1), requiring the papers state inter alia the date and time for the hearing on this matter.

According to the moving papers, plaintiff now moves to strike the answer filed by attorney Fry on behalf of defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC back on 1/15/2025 on the grounds that Ludwick Construction, LLC subsequently filed on 8/6/2025 a Substitution of Attorney which appears to indicate Ludwick Construction, LLC is now self-represented by Lisa Mastropieri, identified as a “Manager” of Ludwick Construction, LLC. Coupled with the fact that Ludwick Construction, LLC has not in the interim retained another attorney to represent it in this suit, plaintiff contends Ludwick Construction, LLC is “appearing without counsel, in direct violation of California law prohibiting business entities from appearing in propria persona.” Plaintiff relies in part

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC in Department 16D

on CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141 for the proposition that “[e]xcept for small claims court, a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney in proceedings before California courts.” (Mov. MPA, p.4:9-13.)

The present motion to strike defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s Answer shall be denied. While it is true that a corporate entity may not participate in legal proceedings without licensed counsel, the CLD Construction opinion cited in the moving papers does not actually control the present situation because the complaint which was the subject of the motion to strike in CLD Construction was filed a corporate entity which did not at the time of filing have legal representation, making its pleading “void” at the outset and therefore subject to a motion to strike. (CLD Construction, at 1145-1146.)

In contrast, in the case at bar, the answer which was filed on behalf of defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC on 1/15/2025 was prepared and signed by a California attorney and as such, this 1/15/2025 answer was entirely proper under California law at the time it was filed. Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure §436(b) provides that the Court may “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.” (Code Civ. Proc. §436(b) [emphasis added].) Defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s answer, insofar as it was filed by a California attorney, was “drawn and filed” in conformity with the laws of California requiring that a corporate entity act through legal counsel.

As such, this answer to the 1AC is not defective for the reasons claimed in the moving papers and is therefore not subject to being stricken for the reasons argued in the moving papers. In short, defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s 1/15/2025 Answer is not retroactively rendered defective and/or subject to being stricken based upon the subsequent withdrawal of the California attorney who filed that answer on behalf of Ludwick Construction, LLC. Moreover, should defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC hereafter obtain new counsel, it may proceed with this litigation without amending its existing answer.

While the moving papers provide at Page 5:14-16 a citation to Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536 for the proposition that a court may strike an improper pleading or otherwise enforce compliance with the rules governing attorney representation “when a defect in legal representation occurs mid-litigation,” this Court has carefully reviewed the specific page of Kobayashi which was cited by plaintiff (i.e., p.543) and is unable to find such verbiage. Accordingly, this contention by plaintiff need not be addressed further here.

To the extent the moving papers also purport to seek an order striking the Substitution of Attorney filed on behalf of Ludwick Construction, LLC on 8/6/2025, the motion is denied because such relief was not set forth in the Notice of Motion. Instead, this motion is explicitly identified as one “to strike Answer of Defendant Ludwick

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC in Department 16D

Construction, LLC” and the Notice of Motion specifically states that plaintiff is moving “this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §436, to strike the Answer filed by Defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC on the grounds that the Answer is being maintained by a business entity that is improperly self-represented in violation of California law.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:4-8.) The Court finds no mention of any Substitution of Attorney which is sought to be stricken. However, the Court’s finding that such relief is outside the scope of the present motion should not be construed that a Substitution of Attorney which purports to designate a non-attorney corporate employee as “new legal counsel” for the corporate entity is legally proper, effective, and/or not subject to potential striking on the Court’s own motion.

For the same reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s request for an order requiring Ludwick Construction, LLC “to obtain licensed counsel and have counsel appear within ten (10) days.” (Mov. MPA., p.6:1-2.) Nor would such relief be proper under any circumstances. That is, a corporate entity may choose not to retain legal counsel or simply not retain legal counsel for any other reason and thereby be subject to the process and outcome of a civil action without the ability to appear or otherwise defend itself.

Finally, while the moving papers conclude with an argument that plaintiffs will be “prejudiced if the Answer remains,” prejudice is not a relevant consideration on a motion to strike. Instead, a motion to strike is statutorily limited to those defects which appear on the face of the subject pleading and either constitute some “irrelevant, false or improper matter” or is not drawn in conformity with the law. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §435 et seq.; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682- 83.)

Regardless, although it is true that Ludwick Construction, LLC cannot further participate in this litigation without representation by a California attorney, this Court is not persuaded that plaintiffs will be unduly prejudiced by Ludwick Construction, LLC’s current lack of representation insofar as California law affords them various avenues leading to relief in such circumstances and for this reason as well, the Court declines to strike the answer filed on behalf of defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC on 1/15/2025.

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety. However, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to seek by noticed motion other relief which may be warranted under 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.)