Lee et al v. Retail Store Employee Building Corporation et al

Filing 79

ORDER for Reassignment to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 56 defendant Preservation Partners Management Group's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/21/2016. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MARIA W. LEE, WEN T. LEE, LIN KOU
LEE,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING
CORPORATIO, CASA DEL PUEBLO
APARTMENT, PPMG, INC., BARCELON
ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CORP.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-04768-HRL
ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 56

Defendants.

19

Plaintiffs, former residents at the Casa Del Pueblo Apartments (Apartments), sue for

20

alleged housing discrimination under federal and state law. Defendant Preservation Partners

21

Management Group, Inc. (PPMG) now moves for summary judgment on the ground that it had no

22

involvement with the Apartments during the time period covered by plaintiffs’ First Amended

23

Complaint, the operative pleading.

24

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of material

25

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);

26

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears the initial

27

burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and identifying portions of the

28

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits which demonstrate the

1

absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In

2

order to meet its burden, “the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential

3

element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not

4

have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.”

5

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

6
7

produce evidence supporting its claims or defenses. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., 210

8

F.3d at 1102. The non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the adverse

9

party’s evidence, but instead must produce admissible evidence that shows there is a genuine issue
of material fact for trial. See id. A genuine issue of fact is one that could reasonably be resolved

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in favor of either party. A dispute is “material” only if it could affect the outcome of the suit

12

under the governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
“When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only

13
14

point out ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’”

15

Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at

16

325). Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere

17

allegations or denials, but must present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that there is a genuine

18

issue for trial. Id.
PPMG has presented evidence demonstrating that it did not assume property management

19
20

duties at the Apartments until more than a year after plaintiffs vacated the premises and that

21

PPMG had no prior involvement with the Apartments. (Dkt. 56-2, Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A).

22

Plaintiff Lin Kou Lee1 did not file any opposition to PPMG’s motion, and the deadline for

23

submitting one has long since passed. She also did not appear at the motion hearing. She

24

therefore has not met her burden to present evidence demonstrating that there is a genuine issue of

25

material fact for trial. Upon consideration of the moving papers, as well as the oral arguments

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs Maria Lee and Wen T. Lee previously advised that they did not intend to oppose
PPMG’s motion. They have since stipulated to the dismissal of their claims against PPMG with
prejudice.
2

1

presented, this court finds that PPMG’s summary judgment motion should be granted.

2

Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, IT IS ORDERED

3

THAT this case be reassigned to a District Judge. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the newly

4

assigned judge grant PPMG’s summary judgment motion. Any party may serve and file

5

objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served. 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

7

Dated: June 21, 2016

8
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:15-cv-04768-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Annette D. Kirkham

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Claudia Borsutzki

4

David Rush Tredway

5
6

Jeff Brandon Atterbury [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

Thomas Philip Zito

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

5:15-cv-04768-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail on 6/21/2016 to:
Lin Kou Lee
238 Lyndale Avenue
San Jose, CA 95127

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4