MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact Defendant forthwith and advise Defendant of Local Rule 2.9 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Defendant prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, in the event that Defendant appears, through newly appointed counsel, without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9.
Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant's answer on the ground that Defendant is not represented by a licensed attorney. Plaintiff argues that an LLC is an unincorporated association, and as such may only appear through a licensed attorney. (See Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo Co. Transit District (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578-79.)
The Court notes that Defendant was represen
Hearing Date
December 27, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact Defendant forthwith and advise Defendant of Local Rule 2.9 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Defendant prior to the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, in the event that Defendant appears, through newly appointed counsel, without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9.
Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant's answer on the ground that Defendant is not represented by a licensed attorney. Plaintiff argues that an LLC is an unincorporated association, and as such may only appear through a licensed attorney. (See Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo Co. Transit District (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578-79.)
The Court notes that Defendant was represen