Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

This isn't internet law school for pro-pers. If you don't know what you're doing, you have no business filing papers in unlimited superior court, any more than if you were to walk into the hospital and ask to use the operating room to operate on yourself. Either you can afford a lawyer or you can afford to lose the case, one or the other.

That said, if there is already an attorney of record in the case, and another attorney attempts to file something on behalf of the same party or parties without first filing a substitution of attorney, you may safely ignore that filing (assuming you are right). The fact that you claim there is already an attorney of record for this party in this case suggests there were other prior court proceedings and/or filings that you didn't mention in your question.

Also, if a defense attorney of record were to file an unverified answer to a verified complaint, this would not be sufficient to controvert the complaint.

I would have fun with those two mistakes on the part of the defendant, but you don't know how. If you were to raise these issues in an incorrect manner, the result would be that you would merely clue in the defendants' law firm and they would fix the problem.

There is no attorney or law firm on record in a case for the defendants until an answer is filed. So unless they filed an amended answer, or yours was an amended complaint, I cannot see how there could be an attorney of record for the defendants that is different than the one who filed the unverified answer. As for their mistake of filing an unverified answer to a verified complaint, you have two choices, you can move to strike the answer, or you can move for judgment on the pleadings. In either case the defendants attorneys will simply file an amended verified answer. So rather than trying to play Perry Mason, call them up, point out their error, and ask them to correct it. Then, as Mr. Stone recommends, go hire a lawyer yourself. In nearly 25 years as a litigator and over 15 as a judge pro tem in Santa Clara Superior Court, I have not once seen a pro per plaintiff who did not get creamed by the defense when the defendants had attorneys. As Mr. Stone has said before, if you can't afford an attorney, you must be able to afford to lose the case.

I disagree with Mr. Stone's statement that you can safely ignore the answer. There are some categories of defendants (including governmental bodies or government officers sued in their official capacity) who do not have to verify an answer even if the complaint was verified.

Even if that is not the kind of defendant you are dealing with, you still can't ignore the unverified answered. The clerk's office probably shouldn't have filed it, but they did. It's now on file, and nobody is going to notice that it wasn't verified unless you point it out. Your best bet is probably a motion to strike, unless the defendant agrees to withdraw the answer after you point out the problem informally per Mr. McCormick's suggestion.

While I agree with much of Mr. McCormick's response, I can think of plenty of scenarios in which a defendant would have counsel of record before filing an answer. For example, defendants often file demurrers, motions to strike, motions to quash, etc. before filing an answer, and generally have lawyers prepare and file those documents for them. Alternatively, if your case involves more than two parties, the defendant may have had to respond to another party's papers before it was time to answer your complaint.

If the defendant already had counsel of record but used different attorneys without filing a substitution or association first then, again, the clerk should not have filed the answer. As before, though, no one will notice the problem unless you bring it to the court's attention or persuade the defendant to correct the problem. (Note to other LawGuru users: Parties are allowed to use different individual attorneys from the same law firm without filing a substitution or association.)

In general, there is little to gain in raising a point that you can not get a permanent victory from. If you have a sound legal argument but the other side can easily cure the defect, what is the point of spending much, if any, time on bringing up the issue; you can point it out to the other side to show your know the law and they have been sloppy, but do not file motions unless you ultimately will gain some advantage.