LI, et al. vs CHEN

DISCUSSION 24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by YANLING CHEN (Defendant) CRS# 937105287674 in Department 517

A. Standing and Real Party in Interest

Defendant contends that Qunhua Li lacks standing on two related grounds. As a threshold matter, no probate was opened, and as a result, Qunhua Li was never appointed the executor of Yongyi Li’s estate. Relatedly, Defendant contends that, in any event, every claim alleged in this action is community property that vested in the surviving spouse, Wenying Ge. As a result, Yongyi Li’s death means that Qunhua Li never had any interest to prosecute. In reply, Defendant adds that the decedent’s transfers of community assets into his revocable trust were ineffective for want of spousal consent, so that the entire estate passed to Ge.

Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) When a plaintiff who commenced an action dies, the action may be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.30, 377.31.) A successor in interest is the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or the person who succeeds to the cause of action, and must file a declaration satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 377.11.) Where a complaint shows on its face that the plaintiff lacks the right or standing to sue, it is subject to a general demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796.) A plaintiff who lacks standing to prosecute an action on the real party’s behalf may have the action dismissed. (Tepper v. Wilkins (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1203-1204.)

While Defendant’s community property argument is partially correct, it does not support dismissal. On a spouse’s death, one-half of the community property belongs to the surviving spouse and one-half to the decedent, who may dispose of his own half. (Prob. Code, § 100; Fam. Code, §§ 751, 760.) The surviving spouse’s half vests in her by operation of law, and if there is no valid will the decedent’s half also passes to her. (Prob. Code, §§ 100, 6401, subd. (a).)

In the instant case, decedent’s portion of the estate passed under his trust and, through the children’s assignments, to Qunhua Li, who is a successor in interest as to that half under section 377.11. (Li Dec. ¶¶ 9-10 & Exs. B, C.) At most, then, Defendant has shown that Qunhua Li may not pursue Wenying Ge’s one-half interest. Defendant has not shown that no proper plaintiff exists, which is what dismissal would require.

In reply, Defendant argues that spousal consent and transmutation (Fam. Code, §§ 1100, subd. (b), 852) go to the character and ultimate ownership of the disputed assets, not to who may appear. Whether transferring community assets into a revocable trust changed their character, and whether those statutes defeat the children’s succession to the decedent’s half, are merits questions that cannot be resolved on this motion.

What remains then is a defect of form. The August 7, 2025 substitution rested on the incorrect representation that Qunhua Li was the “executor,” and no declaration under section 377.32 appears to have been filed. The remedy for a substitution that reached the right party under the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by YANLING CHEN (Defendant) CRS# 937105287674 in Department 517 wrong label, and for a missing section 377.32 declaration, is correction, not dismissal. The motion also does not address the presence of Lancaster. Defendant’s notice of motion does not name Lancaster and advances no ground against its separate claims. (Wu Dec. ¶ 10.) Defendant’s argument that Qunhua Li lacked authority to sue on Lancaster’s behalf, and that any such claim must proceed derivatively, appears for the first time in reply, and the Court does not consider it. Lancaster’s claims will not be dismissed.

B. Fraud on the Court

Defendant contends that the action should be dismissed as a sanction because Qunhua Li obtained the substitution by falsely representing that she was the appointed executor and by presenting a will that stated the decedent was unmarried.

Dismissal as a sanction for litigation misconduct is a drastic remedy. A court has inherent power to impose a terminating sanction only when a party’s deliberate and egregious misconduct makes any sanction short of dismissal inadequate to ensure a fair trial. (Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 740, disapproved on another ground in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46; see id. at pp. 71-72 [noting courts’ undisputed inherent authority to impose nonmonetary sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for discovery misconduct].)

Where the ground is fraud, the fraud must be extrinsic; it must deprive the opposing party of a fair adversary hearing, ordinarily by keeping that party in ignorance of the proceeding or preventing the presentation of a claim or defense. (In re Marriage of Modnick (1983) 33 Cal.3d 897, 905.) By contrast, fraud in the conduct of the litigation itself is intrinsic and will not support that relief. (Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 613-614.)

Here, Defendant’s showing falls short of the applicable standard. Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that the “executor” usage was a mistake in terminology and not an attempt to deceive. Counsel claims that his client conveyed the true underlying facts to him, including that no probate had been opened and that she held a written assignment from her siblings, and he chose the wrong legal label for that status. (Wu Dec. ¶¶ 5-7.) Qunhua Li declares that the will’s marital-status clause was a template error the decedent himself corrected in a notarized 2024 trust amendment, and she volunteered the fact of the marriage at her deposition. (Li Dec. ¶¶ 6-8 & Ex. A.) Those facts are inconsistent with the deliberate and egregious intent a terminating sanction requires. (Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 740.)

Materiality is absent as well. Defendant has litigated this case for over a year, took Qunhua Li’s deposition, and has fully briefed the standing question. No party was kept in ignorance and no defense was suppressed. (In re Marriage of Modnick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 905.) Estate of Sanders does not compel a different result. There, the court found extrinsic fraud and reversed where an executor’s concealment and misrepresentations, in breach of a fiduciary relationship, kept the aggrieved parties from timely contesting a will. (Estate of Sanders, supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 614-615, 618-619.) No comparable concealment occurred here: Qunhua Li disclosed the marriage at her deposition, and Defendant has been aware of the pertinent facts and has litigated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by YANLING CHEN (Defendant) CRS# 937105287674 in Department 517 them fully. And even if some irregularity had been shown, the lesser remedy of correcting the substitution would foreclose dismissal.

Although the Court is denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s counsel conduct in this matter is a cause for serious concern. The standing dispute—including the additional litigation and motion practice that it has engendered—was avoidable. Counsel told the Court, as a ground for relief, that his client had been “appointed as executor” of an estate that was never in probate (Wu Dec., Ex. A at pp. 1-2). Notably, Counsel was alerted by opposing counsel in early 2026 that no such appointment existed and that the case was exposed, and then did nothing to fix it (McDonnell Dec. ¶ 6).

That inattention, consistent with the tendency to overlitigate the Court has noted before in this case, generated a motion, a stay, and a round of concurrent briefing that a timely corrected declaration would have avoided. The Court expects the defect to be cured now, promptly and without further motion practice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

2. Within (7) seven days after service of notice of this order, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall (a) file and serve a declaration complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 establishing Qunhua Li’s status as successor in interest to Yongyi Li, and (b) file and serve either a corrected motion to substitute or a proposed order amending the August 7, 2025 order nunc pro tunc to identify Qunhua Li’s status as successor in interest under Code of Civil Procedure sections 377.11 and 377.31 rather than as executor.

3. If Plaintiffs’ counsel fails to comply within the time allowed, the Court may impose monetary sanctions or dismiss the claims prosecuted in the name of the individual plaintiff. This order does not affect the separate claims of Plaintiff Lancaster.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095244: LI, et al. vs CHEN 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss filed by YANLING CHEN (Defendant) CRS# 937105287674 in Department 517 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812