Liu v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND CLOSING CASE by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 38 Motion to Dismiss. ***Civil case terminated. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHIN-LIN LIU,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Case No. 23-cv-05211-JSW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND CLOSING CASE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 44

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss filed by

14

Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, including the

15

request for a hearing filed by Plaintiff, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. The

16

Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary and, for the reasons that follows, GRANTS

17

BANA’s motion.

18

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff Shin-Lin V. Liu (“Liu”) filed a complaint in Alameda

19

County Superior Court alleging that BANA improperly deducted funds from a bank account

20

belonging to Redwood 101 Investment LLC (the “LLC”), after Liu reported fraud in connection

21

with the transaction. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 (Complaint).) BANA

22

removed the case to this Court and moved to strike the complaint on the basis that the LLC is the

23

real party in interest. Liu is the LLC’s sole member.

24

On November 29, 2023, the Court denied BANA’s motion to strike, found the LLC was

25

the real party in interest, and granted Liu with the opportunity to obtain counsel and to have the

26

LLC ratify, join, or be substituted in to the case. (Dkt. No. 23.) Since then, the Court granted

27

Liu’s requests to continue deadlines to find counsel and to have the LLC ratify, join or be

28

substituted in the matter. The Court also referred Liu to the Court’s Volunteer Legal Help Center.

1

(Dkt. Nos. 27, 29, 31.)
On August 22, 2024, Liu provided the Court with a ratification from the LLC. On October

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2
3

17, 2024, the Court issued an Order accepting the ratification and advised that if Liu obtained

4

counsel before any of the deadlines set in the Order, counsel should file a notice of appearance.

5

(Dkt. No. 36.) The Court also ordered BANA to answer “or otherwise respond” by November 22,

6

2024. BANA responded by filing its motion to dismiss. 1

7

The Court has accepted the LLC’s ratification. Even though Liu is the LLC’s sole

8

member, the LLC is a separate legal entity that must be represented by counsel. See Rowland v.

9

Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby

10

Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137,

11

139-40 (2nd Cir. 2007). Because Liu has not been able to obtain counsel for the LLC, the Court

12

must dismiss the case.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. The Court has not reached the

13
14

merits and dismisses the case without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: January 6, 2025
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Liu cross-moved for entry of default. The Court directed BANA to answer or otherwise
respond. BANA’s motion to dismiss complies with that Order. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Liu’s motion for entry of default.
2