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)
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?