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

Filing 83

Order by Judge Lucy Koh Granting 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 71 Stipulation to Dismiss; Adopting Report and Recommendations as to 79 Report and Recommendations; and Setting Briefing Schedule Regarding 60 and 69 Motions to Dismiss. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016)

Download PDF
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 LEE, and LIN LEE., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, GRANTING PPMG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SETTING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS v. RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 60, 69, 71, 79 Defendants. 18 Plaintiffs Maria Lee, Wen Lee, and Lin Lee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action 19 against Retail Store Employee Building Corporation; Casa del Pueblo Apartment; Preservation 20 Partners Management Group, Inc.; and Barcelon Associates Management Corp. (collectively, 21 “Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on October 15, 2015, and this case was 22 initially assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. ECF No. 1. 23 Although not entirely clear from the pleadings, it appears that Plaintiffs seek monetary 24 damages and equitable relief for various housing discrimination claims related to their prior 25 residence at the Casa del Pueblo Apartment complex. 26 27 28 On May 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which added Barcelon 1 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, GRANTING PPMG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SETTING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 1 Associates Management Corp. (“Barcelon”) as a Defendant. ECF No. 52 (“FAC”). Barcelon 2 declined magistrate judge jurisdiction on June 17, 2016. Consequently, on June 21, 2016, this 3 case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 80. 4 5 6 7 8 9 There were five pending motions at the time the instant action was reassigned: 1. Plaintiffs Maria and Wen Lee’s stipulation with PPMG to dismiss PPMG with prejudice, ECF No. 71; 2. Preservation Partners Management Group, Inc.’s (“PPMG”) motion for summary judgment as to all Plaintiffs, ECF No. 56; 3. Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended that PPMG’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff Lin Lee, ECF No. 79; 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 4. Retail Store Employee Building Corporation (“Retail Store”) and Casa del Pueblo 12 Apartment’s (“Casa del Pueblo”) motion to dismiss the FAC as to all Plaintiffs, 13 ECF No. 60; and 14 15 16 5. Barcelon’s motion to dismiss the FAC as to all Plaintiffs, ECF No. 69. With respect to the foregoing motions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Maria and Wen Lee’s stipulation with PPMG to dismiss PPMG with prejudice. 17 Next, as to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation, the Court notes that this Report 18 and Recommendation was filed on June 21, 2016. Plaintiff Lin Lee did not object to the Report 19 and Recommendation, and the time to file objections has now passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) 20 (requiring that objections be filed within 14 days of a report and recommendation). Indeed, Lin 21 Lee did not even file an opposition to PPMG’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, PPMG has 22 produced evidence demonstrating that “it did not assume property management duties at [the Casa 23 del Pueblo Apartment complex] until more than a year after [P]laintiffs vacated the premises,” and 24 thus had no “involvement with” Plaintiffs. ECF No. 79 at 2. 25 In light of these circumstances, the Court finds Judge Lloyd’s Report and 26 Recommendation well-founded in fact and in law, and therefore ADOPTS the Report and 27 28 2 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, GRANTING PPMG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SETTING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 1 Recommendation in its entirety. See Siddiqui v. AG Commc’n Sys. Corp., 233 F. App’x 610, *2 2 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding district court’s decision to grant summary judgment upon finding that 3 plaintiff had failed to oppose summary judgment motion and that defendant had produced 4 evidence demonstrating defendant’s “entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”). Accordingly, 5 PPMG is no longer a Defendant in the instant action. 6 Finally, both Barcelon’s motion to dismiss and Retail Store and Casa del Pueblo’s motion 7 to dismiss are now fully briefed. These motions will be set for hearing on August 11, 2016, at 8 1:30 p.m. The Court will also set an initial case management conference for August 11, 2016, at 9 1:30 p.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by August 4, 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Dated: July 6, 2016 12 13 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL, GRANTING PPMG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SETTING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?