Motion to Strike Answer
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 53
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Channel Partners Capitals unopposed motion to strike is denied.
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants Lowbrau Bier Garten, LLC and VHCLE Holdings, LLCs answers to the complaint. Plaintiff asserts that the motion is proper given that Defendants are currently unrepresented by counsel. As explained below, the motion must be denied for numerous reasons.
First, a motion to strike must be filed within the time allowed to respond to a pleading. (CCP § 435.) The time for responding to an answer is 10 days after service. (CCP § 430.40.) The instant motion was not filed until July 24, 2025, well after the time Defendants filed and served their answers on November 25, 2024. Although CCP § 436 gives the Court discretion to strike an answer at any time, this hearing was not scheduled on the Court's own motion. Plaintiff is the party seeking to strike the answer. Any motion to strike the answer pursuant to CCP § 435 was required to be filed within 10 days of service of Defendants answer. Accordingly, to the extent that the motion seeks to strike Defendants answer on the basis that it is not represented by counsel, the motion is denied as untimely.
While the Court need not proceed further, it notes that even if the motion to strike had been timely, the Court would still deny the motion on its merits.
It is true that Defendants, corporate entities, cannot appear in an action in propria persona and can appear only through counsel. (Caressa Camille, Inc. v Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101; Merco Construction Engineers, Inc. v Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 731.) However, no authority stands for the proposition that an answer filed by a corporation when represented by counsel is thereafter subject to a motion to strike when the counsel withdraws. For example, in CLD Const., Inc. v.
City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, the Court held a complaint filed by a corporation that was not signed by an attorney failed to comply with this requirement and was therefore subject to a motion to strike. (Id. at 1146.) Here, however, Defendants were represented at the time it filed its pleadings and those pleadings were signed by its attorney. Every pleading shall be subscribed by
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 12/09/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 53
the party or his or her attorney. (CCP §446.) Defendants counsel withdrew on July 14, 2025, well after Defendants filed their answers. Accordingly, Defendants answers were filed in conformity with CCP § 446.
Plaintiff offers no authority indicating that the withdrawal of counsel of record for a corporate party retroactively makes that partys pleadings defective. Notably, such a rule would be inconsistent with the language expressed in CLD Construction indicating that the role of an attorney should not be elevated to that of an indispensable party. (CLD Const., Inc., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1150.) Further, the Court notes that if Defendants were to retain new counsel, there is no statute or rule that would require Defendants to file an amended answer signed by their new counsel. It follows that Defendants pleadings are not defective.
The motion to strike is denied.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiffs counsel is ordered to notify Defendants immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendants appear without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.