Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club vs. Taylor

10

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order Compelling Arbitration is DENIED. Defendant to give notice. 3 Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club vs. Taylor

2023-01322290 Motion to Vacate

Continued to 07/06/2026 4 AISU Optics vs. Baumvision

2021-01225204 Motion to Strike Answer

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 the court may 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).) On 5/19/25, the Court granted Baumvision’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record. (ROA 125.) On 7/23/25, counsel for Baumvision served a notice of ruling on Plaintiff and Baumvision attaching the Court’s signed order granting the motion. (ROA 132.) Since service of the notice, no new counsel has appeared on this case on behalf of Baumvision.

Corporations must be represented by counsel in court proceedings. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) As such, an unrepresented corporation’s pleading is subject to a motion to strike. (Id. at p. 1146.) As this is a curable defect, however, the court may grant the motion with leave to amend. (Id. at p. 1144.)

Tentative Ruling: The Court STRIKES the Answer and Crosscomplaint filed by Baumvision on 12/28/21 and 2/8/22, respectively, with leave to amend.

Should Baumvision desire to file an Amended Answer and Crosscomplaint, Baumvision shall file and serve an Amended Answer and Cross-complaint through counsel no later than 30 days after service of the notice of ruling.