General Appearance

Code of Civil Procedure § 1014 states, “A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers, demurs, files a notice of motion to strike, files a notice of motion to transfer pursuant to Section 396b, ... gives the plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1014.; see also Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 449, 453 (1975) (“A written stipulation between attorneys recognizing jurisdiction of the court over the parties constitutes a [g]eneral appearance by defendant.”).)

The statutory list contained in Section 1014 of what constitutes an appearance is not exclusive. A general appearance occurs when the defendant takes part in the action or in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1014.) If the defendant confines its participation in the action to objecting to lack of jurisdiction over the person, there is no general appearance. However, a party who seeks relief on any basis other than a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction will be deemed to have made a general appearance and waived all objections to defects in service, process, or personal jurisdiction. (Id.)

Corporate Appearances

A corporation is not able to represent itself either in propia persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney, except by statutory permission, in the small claims court. (Merco Const. Engineers v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 739; Paradise v. Nowling (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 899-900.) This is true even though the corporation is alleged to be the alter ego of the named individual defendant. (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199.) A corporation that does not obtain counsel within a reasonable period of time after previous counsel’s motion to withdraw has been granted “risks forfeiture of its rights through non-representation.” (Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 501.) If a notice of appearance is not filed by a corporation by the required date, the Answer to the Complaint will be stricken. (See United States v. High Country Broad Co. (9th Cir. 1993) 3 19 F.3d 1244, 1245; CLD Construction Inc. v. City of Ramon (2004) 120 Cal. App.4th 1141 (considering federal law in determining issues related to unrepresented corporations).)

Related Issues

New Attorney and Calendar Error

“[C]alendar errors by an attorney or a member of his staff are, under appropriate circumstances, excusable.” (Nilsson v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 976, 980.) Any doubts in applying Section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 (superseded by statute on other grounds).) Failing to appear at an OSC can be effectively a mistaken failure to respond to a dismissal motion. (Peltier v. McCloud River R.R. Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1809, 1824 (concluding mandatory provision of section 473(b) applies to “plaintiffs whose cases are dismissed for failing to respond to a dismissal motion”).)

Notice of Association

Notice of Association is different from a Notice of Appearance.