1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MERYL POMPONIO, Case No. 20-cv-09448-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 10 BEVERAGES & MORE, INC., et al., Docket Nos. 26, 27 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendants Jason Zhong Wong and Judi Li Chan Wong’s 15 motion to declare plaintiff Meryl Pomponio a vexatious litigant, which is joined by Defendants 16 Beverages & More, Inc. and Adlan, LLC. See Docket Nos. 26 (“Mot.”); 27 (“Joiner Mot.”). 17 Although Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint is “harassing,” they do not ask the Court to 18 dismiss it. See id. In fact, Defendants’ reply states that “it is clear that Plaintiff lacks standing” 19 and therefore that “Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss on that basis as soon as possible.” 20 See Docket No. 34 (“Reply”) at 7 (emphasis added). 21 Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is DENIED because it is 22 premature. Declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant serves no purpose unless and until Defendants 23 successfully move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See Brooke v. Grand Hyatt SF LLC, No. 19- 24 CV-07630-MMC,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020) (“[A]lthough the Court will 25 dismiss the instant action, the Court, as noted, will afford plaintiff leave to amend, and, 26 consequently, it is, at best, premature to determine at this time whether the instant action is 27 /// 1 frivolous or harassing.”). Accordingly, Defendants may refile this motion if this Court dismisses 2 Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. 3 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 26 and 27. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: September 2, 2021 8 9 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27