Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Taocheng Liu v. Meet Up Restaurant, Inc., et al

Case Number

23CV05561

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/22/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Meet Up Restaurant, Inc.

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Taocheng Liu: Ray Hsu, Mark Said 

                                   

For Defendant Meet Up Restaurant, Inc.: Unrepresented

                                   

For Defendant Yong Wang: Self-Represented

                                   

RULING:  For the reasons set forth herein:

  1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike answer of defendant Meet Up Restaurant, Inc. is granted with leave to amend. The answer stands as to defendant Yong Wang.
  2. Plaintiff shall serve all parties with a Notice of Ruling and shall file a proof of service with the court, no later than May 29, 2024.
  3. Defendant Meet Up Restaurant, Inc. shall file and serve an answer to the complaint, represented by a licensed attorney, no later than 45 days from the date it is served with the Notice of Ruling.
  4. The Case Management Conference now set for 5/29/24 is continued, sua sponte, to 7/31/24.

Background

This action commenced on December 14, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Taocheng Liu (“plaintiff”) against defendants Meet Up Restaurant, Inc. (“Meet Up”) and Yong Wang (“Wang”) setting forth 10 causes of action for alleged violations of the Labor Code. As alleged, plaintiff was employed by defendants beginning in August 2021, and was subject to multiple violations of the Labor Code.

On January 11, 2024, Wang filed an answer to the complaint on behalf of himself and Meet Up. The answer was not filed by a licensed attorney.

Plaintiff now moves to strike the answer as to Meet Up on the grounds that Meet Up cannot proceed in this action without representation of a licensed attorney.

No opposition or other responsive document has been filed by either defendant to plaintiff’s motion.

Analysis

            Motion to Strike

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

“(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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

“The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff argues that the answer is not drawn in conformity with the laws of California in that California does not permit a corporate defendant to represent itself before the courts.

“A corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business. (§ 17; Corp.Code, §§ 105, 207.) However, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (CLD).)

“Several rationales lie behind the rule. First, a corporation, as an artificial entity created by law, can only act in its affairs through its natural person agents and representatives. If the corporate agent who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation in court proceedings, e.g., an officer or director, is not an attorney, that person would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.” (Id. at p. 1146.)

“Second, the rule furthers the efficient administration of justice by assuring that qualified professionals, who, as officers of the court are subject to its control and to professional rules of conduct, present the corporation’s case and aid the court in resolution of the issues. [Citations.] Third, the rule helps maintain the distinction between the corporation and its shareholders, directors, and officers. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Pursuant to CLD, and other authorities, Meet Up is precluded from representing itself before the court. Likewise, as Wong is not a licensed attorney, Wong cannot represent Meet Up before the court. Therefore, the answer, as to Meet Up, is not drawn in conformity with the laws of California and the motion to strike will be granted.

“Given the weight of nationwide authority and this state’s increasing acceptance of the view that representation of the corporation by an attorney is not an absolute prerequisite to the court’s fundamental power to hear or determine a case, we are persuaded it is more appropriate and just to treat a corporation’s failure to be represented by an attorney as a defect that may be corrected, on such terms as are just in the sound discretion of the court. First and foremost, this approach honors the cornerstone jurisprudential policies that, in furtherance of justice, complaints are to be liberally construed (§ 452) and disputes should be resolved on their merits. [Citation.]” (CLD, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1149.)

Meet Up will be given leave to obtain counsel and file an answer that is drawn in conformity with the laws of California.

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?