Shin, et al. v. Yoon, et al.

Filing 90

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/7/2023. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party wishing to continue this case in any fashion shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of electroni c service of this order why the Court should not dismiss all remaining claims and /or counterclaims with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If the required showing is not made within the specified period of time, all remaining claims and / or co unterclaims will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and this case will be CLOSED, without further notice to the parties. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for lack of prosecution). (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

SU JUNG SHIN and HYUN JU SHIN,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

ROBERT YOUNG YOON, et al.,
Defendants.
BOB YOUNG YOON,

14
15
16
17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
DISMISSAL

v.

12
13

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00381-AWI-SKO

Counter-Claimants,
v.
HYUN JU SHIN,
Counter-Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22

This case was brought in 2018 by Su Jung Shin and Hyun Ju Shin (“Plaintiffs”) against

23 multiple defendants, including Robert (“Bob”) Young Yoon, Kyoung Mee Yoon, Kyoung Sup
24 Yoon, Y&Y Property Management, Inc., The Victus Group, Inc., Blackstone Seattle, LLC, and
25 Yoon & Yoon Investments, LLC (together, “Defendants”). Doc. No. 1. In 2019, Bob Young
26 Yoon, Y&Y Property Management, Kyoung Mee Yoon and Kyoung Sup Yoon brought
27 counterclaims against Plaintiffs. Doc. Nos. 45 & 46.
28

On March 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed Judicial Council of California Form EJ-100, which is

1 entitled “Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment.” Doc. No. 89. It appears that this filing
2 may have been intended to convey that the stipulated judgment that was ordered by the Court on
3 September 10, 2019, see Doc. No. 59, has been satisfied. The form in question, however, is for use
4 in California state court and the Court cannot determine—beyond mere surmise—what outcome
5 Plaintiffs intended to effect by filing it, without explanation, in this federal forum. Moreover, the
6 stipulated judgment to which the form appears to relate does not purport to resolve claims against
7 all Defendants and may not resolve all counterclaims. See Doc. Nos. 56 & 57.
8

In any event, there has been no docketed activity in this case of any kind since the form

9 was filed on March 4, 2021. See Doc. No. 89.
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party wishing to continue this case in

11 any fashion shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of electronic
12 service of this order why the Court should not dismiss all remaining claims and /or counterclaims
13 with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If the required showing is not made within the specified
14 period of time, all remaining claims and / or counterclaims will be DISMISSED WITH
15 PREJUDICE and this case will be CLOSED, without further notice to the parties. See Henderson
16 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for lack of
17 prosecution).
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: March 7, 2023

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2