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

Filing 93

Order by Judge Lucy Koh Granting 60 , 69 Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiff Lin Lee and Order to Show Cause. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2016)

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, et al., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 18 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO PLAINTIFF LIN LEE v. RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 60, 69 Defendants. Plaintiffs Maria Lee, Wen Lee, and Lin Lee bring this action against Retail Store 19 Employee Building Corporation (“Retail Store”); Casa del Pueblo Apartment (“CDP”); and 20 Barcelon Associates Management Corp (“Barcelon”). Before the Court are two motions to dismiss 21 the First Amended Complaint, one filed by Barcelon Associates Management Corp. and another 22 filed by Retail Store Employee Building Corporation and Casa del Pueblo Apartment. ECF No. 23 69 (“Barcelon Mot.”); ECF No. 60 (“Retail Store Mot.”); ECF No. 52 (“FAC”). 24 25 The instant Order pertains only to Plaintiff Lin Lee (“Lin”) because Lin, unlike Plaintiffs Maria Lee (“Maria”) and Wen Lee (“Wen”), did not file a response to either Barcelon or Retail 26 27 28 1 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO PLAINTIFF LIN LEE 1 Store and CDP’s motions to dismiss.1 This is, moreover, not the first time that Lin has failed to 2 file a response or opposition. Notably, the FAC also named Preservation Partners Management Group, Inc. (“PPMG”) 3 4 as a Defendant. On May 9, 2016, PPMG moved for summary judgment. On June 13, 2016, Maria 5 and Wen stipulated to dismiss PPMG with prejudice. ECF No. 71. Lin, however, did not file a 6 response or opposition to PPMG’s motion for summary judgment. U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard 7 Lloyd, to whom this action was originally assigned, found PPMG’s motion for summary judgment 8 well-founded in fact and in law. Consequently, Judge Lloyd issued a Report and 9 Recommendation which recommended that PPMG’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to Lin. ECF No. 79. The instant action was reassigned to the undersigned judge on June 21, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 2016. ECF No. 80. 12 Lin did not object to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, on July 6, 13 2016, the Court adopted Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation in full. ECF No. 83. Lin did 14 not appeal the Court’s July 6, 2016 Order. Finally, on July 28, 2016, the parties filed their joint case management statement in 15 16 advance of the August 11, 2016 initial case management conference. ECF No. 92. Lin did not 17 participate in the preparation of this statement. As counsel for Maria and Wen explain, Lin is 18 “unrepresented in this matter and . . . Maria and Wen[’s] . . . counsel ha[ve] not been able to meet 19 and confer with her.” Id. at 1. Lin’s failure to participate in preparing the joint case management 20 statement is in violation of Civil Local Rule 16-9. See Civil L.R. 16-9(a) (requiring all parties to 21 meet, confer, and prepare a joint case management statement at least seven days in advance of the 22 case management conference). 23 To summarize, Lin (1) did not respond to or oppose PPMG’s motion for summary 24 judgment; (2) did not object to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation; (3) did not appeal the 25 Court’s order adopting Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation; (4) did not participate in 26 27 28 1 The Court will issue a forthcoming Order that addresses the motions to dismiss as to Maria and Wen. 2 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO PLAINTIFF LIN LEE 1 preparing the joint case management statement; and (5) did not oppose the instant motions to 2 dismiss filed by Barcelon, Retail Store, and CDP. 3 In light of the foregoing, the motions to dismiss filed by Barcelon and by Retail Store and 4 CDP are GRANTED without prejudice as to Lin. Moreover, the Court ORDERS Lin to show 5 cause why she should not be dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to prosecute. 6 Lin has until August 19, 2016 to file a written response, not to exceed three pages in length, to this 7 Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for August 25, 2016, at 1:30 8 p.m. If Lin fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause and fails to appear at the August 25, 2016 9 Order to Show Cause hearing, the Court will dismiss Lin from this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 5, 2016. 13 14 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO PLAINTIFF LIN LEE

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?