Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
25CV010968: KINGSMEN INVESTMENT LLC vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 12/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Defendant City of Sacramentos (Defendant) demurrer to plaintiff Kingsman Investment LLCs (Plaintiff) Complaint is UNOPPOSED and OVERRULED.
Defendant demurs on the ground that Plaintiff, a limited liability company, has brought this action by and through an individual other than a licensed attorney and a corporation cannot representing itself in court without counsel.
Here, the Complaint was filed by Xinyu Yao in pro per and the Complaint does not assert that Mr. Yao is a licensed attorney.
It is well established that a corporation cannot represent itself in court in pro per or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney. (Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729, 731; see also Thomas G. Ferruzzo, Inc. v. Super. Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 503.) A pleading filed by a corporation in pro per is subject to a motion to strike, although the corporation may be granted leave to amend to show representation by counsel. (See generally CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141.)
A demurrer is not the appropriate vehicle for Defendants argument. A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) Defendant does not argue that the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant contends the Complaint was not filed in conformity with applicable laws. Thus, the Complaint may be subject to a motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, but Defendant has not moved to strike.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party
25CV010968: KINGSMEN INVESTMENT LLC vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO 12/18/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54
may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. 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 will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.