Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc.

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

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike the Complaint and Answer to Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant and Cross-Complainants Star Nursing, Inc., Nancy Frost, and Kimberly Joens’ (“Defendants”) Motion to Strike Complaint and Answer to Cross-Complaint filed by Plaintiff Elite Healthcare Resources, LLC (“Elite” or “Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

On January 28, 2022, Elite commenced this action by filing its complaint alleging causes of action which included defamation, libel, slander, false light, interference with prospective advantage, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contract against Defendants. Elite alleges it is a competitor with Star Nursing, Inc. (“Star”) and that both provide nurses and other healthcare practitioners for placement in healthcare facilities. Elite alleges Defendants made false statements about Elite, including engaging in an online “smear campaign,” telling others not to use Elite’s services, and falsely alleging Elite stole Defendants’ client and healthcare provider lists.

Cross-Complainant Star Nursing, Inc. filed its cross-complaint on March 1, 2023, alleging causes of action for: (1) computer fraud; (2) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (5) conversion; (6) violation of Penal Code section 502; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; and (8) libel per se. Elite and Cross- Defendants Victoria Santos and Tiffany Fabiani filed an answer to the cross-complaint on April 7, 2023.

On June 29, 2023, Elite filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging five causes of action: (1) libel per se; (2) slander per se; (3) intentional interference with prospective advantage; (4) negligent interference with prospective advantage; and (5) unfair competition (Business and Professions Code section 17200).

Defendants now move to strike Elite’s operative SAC and answer to the cross-complaint on the grounds that Elite is a suspended entity and therefore lacks the capacity to prosecute or defend the instant action. Elite filed an opposition, asserting waiver and, in the alternative requesting a brief continuance to permit Elite to present its certificate of revivor.

The Court (Judge Hardcastle) briefly continued the matter, originally scheduled to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike the Complaint and Answer to Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

heard on June 15, 2026, to today’s date. The Court’s June 15, 2026 Minute Order states:

Defendants have presented evidence to indicate that Elite was suspended as of May 1, 2025. Elite presents no evidence in opposition which would indicate that Elite has yet obtained a certificate of revivor or is in the active process of doing so. Plaintiffs argue on reply that Elite has been suspended for more than a year, and therefore has had ample opportunity to revive.

Nevertheless, the Court with exercise its discretion and briefly continue the instant motion to permit Elite to file a certificate of revivor.

The instant motion is CONTINUED to July 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department.

Elite is instructed to file its certificate of revivor with the Court on or before July 20, 2026.

(June 15, 2026 Minute Order, p. 2.)

Discussion

Elite has not filed any certificate of revivor. On July 17, 2026, Elite filed an “Application for Certificate of Revivor,” which appears to have been filed with the California Secretary of State on July 17, 2026. However, Elite does appear to remain in suspended status. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 4 [showing Secretary of State Certificate of Status on April 06, 2026 as “Suspended – FTB as of 05/01/2025”].)

The Court declines to consider Elite’s opposition on the merits, given that Elite has not at any time relevant to the instant motion, which was filed on April 7, 2026, maintained active status with the California Secretary of State, and therefore, it cannot participate in litigation. (City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Govt. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568, 577 [“A corporation that has had its powers suspended ‘lacks the legal capacity to prosecute or defend a civil action during its suspension.’”]; see Rev. & Tax. Code § 23301.)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00314757-CU-DF-GDS: Elite Healthcare Resources LLC vs. Star Nursing Services, Inc. 07/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike the Complaint and Answer to Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.

However, Elite’s complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended complaint were filed on January 28, 2022; August 30, 2022; and June 29, 2023, respectively. Elite did not become suspended until May 1, 2025. Similarly, Elite filed its answer on April 7, 2023, more than two years before it became suspended. As such, at the time the operative pleading at issue in this motion was filed, Elite was not suspended. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike Elite’s operative pleadings, as they were not out of “conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court” when they were filed.

Defendants cite no authority to support that the Court should strike pleadings filed by a corporation when not on suspended status simply because it is later suspended. Defendants’ cited authority, particularly in reply, stand for the proposition that a suspended corporation lacks capacity to prosecute and defend civil actions. (See Bourhis v. Lord (2013) 56 Cal.4th 320, 324; Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343; Casiopea Bovet, LLC v. Chiang (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 656, 662; see also Chevron Environmental Management Company v.

Environmental Protection Corporation (E.D. Cal. 2020) 335 F.R.D. 316, 320.) But, none of these cases address or hold that the Court should grant the requested relief sought through this motion—i.e., striking a pleading that was properly filed at the time. Indeed, in Bourhis v. Lord, the California Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal filed while a corporation was suspended— even though jurisdictional and invalid at the time filed—could be subsequently rendered valid and timely by a corporation’s later reinstatement. (56 Cal.4th at p. 329.)

If a jurisdictional filing that was invalid could later be rendered valid, the Court is unclear why, and on what authority, it should strike pleadings that were valid at the time filed. This is particularly true where the corporation could be removed (and may be in the process of removing itself) from inactive status.

Disposition

As set forth above, the motion is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.