| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC18571386 - October 1, 2025 Hearing date: October 1, 2025 Case number: CGC18571386 Case title: CHARLES LI VS. MEI LING FANG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC18571386 | Case Title: | | CHARLES LI VS. MEI LING FANG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02 | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, October 1, 2025, Line 10, DEFENDANT DEMAS YAN AKA DENNIS YAN, AN INDIVIDUAL Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02 (part 1 of 2)
Defendant Demas Yan's Motion To Set Aside Dismissal Without Prejudice Filed On 2025-07-02 is DENIED. Moving Defendant's substantive contention is that any dismissal of Plaintiff Charles Li's claims against Moving Defendant must be with prejudice. Defendant is wrong and the court declines to exercise its discretion to undo Plaintiff's pre-trial voluntary dismissal of his claims against Moving Defendant without prejudice.
On August 26, 2022, this court granted Moving Defendant's motion to strike, accepting Moving Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's claims in this case were duplicative of his claims against Moving Defendant in the earlier filed action, Li v. Feng, CGC-18-571386. The court's August 2022 order was not an adjudication of Plaintiff's claims against Moving Defendant on the merits. At the time, CGC-18-571386 was still being litigated.
Later, the court consolidated this case with CGC-18-571386 and, ultimately, the court entered default against Moving Defendant in CGC-18-571386 as a discovery sanction. Thus, Plaintiff has prevailed against Moving Defendant in CGC-18-571386, though judgment has not yet been entered.
Given that in August 2022 the court simply struck Plaintiff's claims against Moving Defendant in this action because they were duplicative of all claims already pending in another action, it is clear the court was not passing judgment on the adequacy of the allegations or the viability of any such claims. Their merit would be-indeed, has been-litigated in the other action, i.e., CGC-18-571386---and litigated in favor of Plaintiff and against Moving Defendant. Any dismissal of Plaintiff 's claims against Moving Defendant in this action with prejudice, or any judgment in favor of Moving Defendant and against Plaintiff, in this action would be inconsistent with the default against Moving Defendant already ordered in CGC-18-571386. Dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Moving Defendant is neither necessary under the law or appropriate.
Moving Defendant's analogy to Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, by contrast, the court in the August 2022 order did not conclusively determine the merits of Plaintiff's claims against Moving Defendant, finding only the claims needed to be litigated in the earlier filed CGC-18-571386. Thus, dismissal without prejudice is not barred. And, as noted above, the court finds on this record Plaintiff's dismissal of his claims against Moving Defendant was appropriate. Moving Defendant in his motion has failed to demonstrate otherwise. Thus, his motion is denied. (Tentative ruling continues in part 2 of 2) | |