Page 1
‘Party Litigant’ Does Not Include Corporation Not Represented by Counsel, C.A. Declares
Despite Answer Having Been Filed, Prepared by Nonlawyer-Owner, Absence of Attorney at Trial Obviates Need for Defendant’s Stipulation to Commissioner, Opinion Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has affirmed an unlawful detainer judgment against a tenant even though the defendant had not stipulated to the matter being heard by a commissioner, holding that a corporation unrepresented by a lawyer, though it has an answer on file, is not a “party litigant” having status to reject a pro tem judge.
Consent of the defendant, DLS US, LLC, was not needed at trial, Justice Daniel H. Bromberg wrote, because, as a corporation, it could only be represented by an attorney and, instead, the business’s proprietor, Jing Huang, a nonlawyer, appeared in Santa Clara Superior Court. Huang did so despite Commissioner Erik Johnson having given him a one-week continuance within which to find counsel when he first showed up on April 21, 2023, the initial trial date, intending to represent the corporation.
Johnson found in favor of the lessor, BPREP Village Residences, LLC, in the amount of $445,479.69.
Bromberg, in an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, noted that Art. VI, §21 of the California Constitution provides:
“On stipulation of the parties litigant the court may order a cause to be tried by a temporary judge who is a member of the State Bar, sworn and empowered to act until final determination of the cause.”
DLS, though a party, was not a “party litigant,” the jurist declared, because, bereft of a lawyer to represent it, it did not “appear” at trial.
Plaintiff’s Stipulation Sufficed
“The commissioner had jurisdiction to preside over the trial and render judgment because BPREP was the only ‘party litigant’ at trial and it stipulated to the commissioner’s appointment as temporary judge,” he explained.
DLS stressed, on appeal, that the Superior Court had accepted its answer, prepared by Huang, for filing—though the Clerk’s Office made note, in sending him a conformed copy, that a corporation may only appear through counsel—and a judge granted a fee waiver requested by the business-owner. Bromberg, after noting that a corporation is not eligible for a fee waiver, said:
“Even more fundamentally…, where a party has appeared in a case and become a party litigant, that status may be forfeited by subsequently failing to appear at trial.…Consequently, even if the clerk somehow could have conferred party litigant status upon DLS by filing documents, DLS forfeited that status by failing to properly appear at trial through counsel.”
Consent Inferred
DLS also asserted that Johnson, based on the lack of a stipulation by it to his hearing matters, improperly acted on its motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473 for relief from the judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect. That motion was presented by an attorney.
Bromberg wrote:
“…DLS’s counsel did not object to the commissioner hearing the motion to set aside. Instead, it argued the merits of the motion without any reservation.
“By proceeding without object to the commissioner’s authority, DLS implicitly consented to the commissioner’s authority to act as a temporary judge.”
Argument on Merits
DLS contended that Johnson erred in denying its motion for relief, pointing to the policy in favor of cases being decided on the merits. Maintaining that Huang, as a layperson, cannot be expected to have grasped the significance of the admonishment by the Clerk’s Office that “[y]our document has been filed however, corporations must be represented by an attorney,” said in its opening brief on appeal:
“Aside from the mixed message when DLS’s answer was accepted for filing, Huang and DLS had absolutely no notice that DLS needed representation; indeed, every other indication from the court was to the contrary. It is certainly not surprising that a layman such as Huang did not understand the import of the clerk’s Civil File Rejection Letter. His failure to retain counsel for DLS was quintessentially mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.”
The defendant/appellant added in its reply brief that in light of the answer, fee-waiver request, and one other document being accepted for filing, and judicial action taking place on the waiver request, “Huang was indeed and justifiably surprised when Commissioner Johnson told him that DLS had to be represented by counsel.”
Bromberg countered that when Huang first appeared, intending to represent his business, that a corporation may only appear through counsel, “far from expressing surprise, Huang responded that ‘we try, but it’s not affordable for me.’ ”
‘Reasonable Prudence’
To invoke §473’s ground of “surprise,” he added, the party seeking relief must show having acted with “reasonable prudence.” As he sized it up:
“A person exercising ordinary prudence would not ignore an express admonition that corporations must be represented by an attorney and assume the opposite to be true simply because two documents were filed without further comment.”
He continued:
“Nor can Huang claim that he made a reasonable mistake. While in some circumstances a mistake of law may provide a valid ground for relief, ‘ignorance of the law coupled with negligence in ascertaining it’ does not….Here, Huang made no effort to ascertain the law and dispel any uncertainty created by the filing of DLS’s requests.”
Amount of Damages
Contesting the damages award—which exceeded the $386,182.81 sought in the complaint—DLS cited Code of Civil Procedure §580(a) which says:
“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint.”
Bromberg pointed out:
“…DLS filed an answer, thereby precluding entry of default, and the court entered a judgment after court trial, not a prove-up hearing. Consequently, the judgment against DLS is not a default judgment subject to the restrictions in section 580 on the size of default judgments.”
The case is BPREP Village Residences v. DLS US, H051268.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company