Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Eco Home Improvements Corporation

been filed to date to demonstrate waiver of the shortened notice period; the Court must deny the Motion for lack of full statutory notice.

On a separate issue, the Court notes that the Complaint seeks specific performance of an agreement to convey real property. This form of relief exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Court in limited civil matters. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 85(b), 86(a)(7), (b).)

The Court sets an Order to Show Cause regarding transfer of the action to an Independent Calendar Court. If Plaintiff believes the case is properly assigned here, Plaintiff may appear and show cause. Otherwise, the Court will order the case re-assigned.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Jonathan Mata's Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied. Order to Show Cause Re: Why This Action Should Not Be Reclassified as an Unlimited Civil Action and Transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for Collection of Fees and Reassignment to an Unlimited Civil Court is scheduled for 09/16/2026, 2026 at 9:30 am in Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. Moving party to give notice.

Defendant Eco Home Improvements Corporation's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment is placed off calendar.

Analysis: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendant Eco Home Improvements Corporation ("Defendant") on October 27, 2025. Following Defendant's failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered its default on December 31, 2025 and default judgment in favor of Plaintiff on February 2, 2026. On August 3, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment in propria persona. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 12, 2026.

Discussion

The Court declines to reach the merits of Defendant's Motion, which was brought without legal representation. (Motion, p. 1.) As Plaintiff points out in its opposition, it is black letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court. (Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 578.) Therefore, Defendant must proceed through counsel if it wishes to seek to vacate its default and the default judgment.

Conclusion

Defendant Eco Home Improvements Corporation's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment is placed off calendar. Judicial Assistant to give notice.

Case Number: 26STLC00289 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 26 TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Westside Loan Office's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions, is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff Kevin Robinson is to serve verified responses to the interrogatories without objections, within 20 days' service of this order. Defendant's request for an award of sanctions is denied.

Analysis: On March 18, 2026, Defendant Westside Loan Office ("Defendant") served Special Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff Kevin Robinson ("Plaintiff"). (Motion, Erikson Decl., P.P.2-5 and Exhs. A-B.) As of Defendant's filing of the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions on July 28, 2026, Plaintiff had not served responses despite Defendant's effort to meet and confer. (Id. at P.P.6-12 and Exhs. C-D.) Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.

There is no requirement for a prior meet-and-confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.) Further, the motion can be brought at any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.) Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling code-compliant responses without objections.

Defendant also moves for an award of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), which provides for sanctions if a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses without reasonable justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c) ["The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust."].) However, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the instant Motion.

Defendant also points to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. In City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, the Supreme Court observed: It is already well-established that a court may not rely on [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2023.030 to override the limitations prescribed by any other applicable sanctions provision in the [Civil Discovery] Act. A court may invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 only when confronted with an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision. And where it invokes that authority, it is constrained by the long-settled rules generally governing the imposition of discovery sanctions under the Act. (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 74-75.)

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff's failure to serve discovery responses is "an unusual form of discovery abuse, or a pattern of abuse, not already addressed by a relevant sanctions provision." Therefore, the Court declines to invoke its independent authority to impose sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.

Conclusion

Defendant Westside Loan Office's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Special Interrogatories: Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions, is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiff Kevin Robinson is to serve verified responses to the interrogatories without objections, within 20 days' service of this order. Defendant's request for an award of sanctions is denied. Moving Party to give notice. | Home -->