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)
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?