DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC20585017·sf·Civil·Real Property / Housing
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED

BENITA CHIU VS. CHARLES LI

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Mandatory Dismissal Of Action

Hearing date
Jul 25, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBenita Chiu
DefendantCharles Li
OtherTina Yan

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC20585017 - July 25, 2025 Hearing date: July 25, 2025 Case number: CGC20585017 Case title: BENITA CHIU VS. CHARLES LI Case Number: | | CGC20585017 | Case Title: | | BENITA CHIU VS. CHARLES LI | Court Date: | | 2025-07-25 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Mandatory Dismissal Of Action | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for July 25, 2025, line 1.

Cross-Defendant Chiu's Motion for Mandatory Dismissal of Action is DENIED. In light of Cross-Complainant's dismissals, the motion boils down to whether the Cross-Complaint should be dismissed as to Tina Yan. It should not. A default was entered against Tina Yan on the original Cross-Complaint on May 24, 2022. The Court will not address whether the default has been "opened" because even if the default has been "opened," it has not been three years since the First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on August 10, 2023. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tent ative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share