Emphasizing that California courts have never adopted federal concepts of standing as a necessary part of subject matter jurisdiction, this decision holds that the fact that the plaintiff is a dissolved limited liability company does not deprive it of “standing” or a California court of subject matter jurisdiction of its malicious prosecution claim. Dissolution of the corporation affects only its capacity to sue, a defect that the corporation may cure during the course of the lawsuit. Similarly, the fact that the case is filed in the business name (the d/b/a) of the corporation does not affect standing or jurisdiction. A plaintiff, whether an individual or a corporation, may choose any name he or it pleases, so long as it does not do so for fraudulent purposes. If the corporation failed to comply with the state’s fictitious business name requirements, that defect, too, may be cured during the course of the litigation and provides no reason for dismissing the suit for lack of standing or jurisdiction.
California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (Rushing, P.J.); June 15, 2017; 12 Cal. App. 5th 936