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

Filing 99

Order Dismissing Plaintiff Lin Lee for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 08/25/2016. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2016)

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

v.

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN
LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Maria Lee, Wen Lee, and Lin Lee (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Retail

19

Store Employee Building Corporation (“Retail Store”); Casa del Pueblo Apartment (“CDP”); and

20

Barcelon Associates Management Corp (“Barcelon”). The instant Order pertains only to Plaintiff

21

Lin Lee (“Lin”).

22

Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on October 15, 2015. ECF No. 1.

23

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on May 2, 2016. ECF No. 52 (“FAC”). On May 9,

24

2016, Preservation Partners Management Group, Inc. (“PPMG”), a Defendant that was named in

25

the FAC and that was previously in this case, filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 13,

26

2016, Maria and Wen stipulated to dismiss PPMG with prejudice. ECF No. 71. Lin, however, did

27

not file a response or opposition to PPMG’s motion for summary judgment. U.S. Magistrate
1

28

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

Judge Howard Lloyd, to whom this action was originally assigned, found PPMG’s motion for

2

summary judgment well-founded in fact and in law. Consequently, Judge Lloyd issued a Report

3

and Recommendation which recommended that PPMG’s motion for summary judgment be

4

granted as to Lin. ECF No. 79. The instant action was reassigned to the undersigned judge on

5

June 21, 2016. ECF No. 80.

6

Lin did not object to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, on July 6,

7

2016, the Court adopted Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation in full. ECF No. 83. Lin did

8

not appeal the Court’s July 6, 2016 Order.

9

On May 13, 2016, the remaining Defendants—Retail Store, CDP, and Barcelon—moved
to dismiss the FAC. Lin did not file a response or opposition to these motions to dismiss. In

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

addition, on July 28, 2016, the parties filed a joint case management statement. ECF No. 92. Lin

12

did not participate in the preparation of this statement. As counsel for Maria and Wen explained,

13

Lin is “unrepresented in this matter and . . . Maria and Wen[’s] . . . counsel ha[ve] not been able to

14

meet and confer with her.” Id. at 1. Lin’s failure to participate in preparing the joint case

15

management statement was in violation of Civil Local Rule 16-9. See Civil L.R. 16-9(a)

16

(requiring all parties to meet, confer, and prepare a joint case management statement at least seven

17

days in advance of the case management conference).

18

In light of the foregoing, the Court granted, on August 5, 2016, Retail Store, CDP, and

19

Barcelon’s motions to dismiss the FAC as to Lin without prejudice. The Court also ordered Lin to

20

show cause why she should not be dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to

21

prosecute. ECF No. 93. Specifically, the Court ordered Lin to respond to the Order to Show

22

Cause by August 19, 2016, and to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing, set for August 25,

23

2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Court noted that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause and failure

24

to appear at the August 25, 2016 hearing would result in Lin being dismissed with prejudice. Lin

25

has not responded to the Order to Show Cause and did not appear at the August 25, 2016 hearing.

26
27
28

Considering that Lin has failed to oppose PPMG’s motion for summary judgment; failed to
oppose Barcelon, CDP, and Retail Store’s motions to dismiss; failed to object to Judge Lloyd’s
2
Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

report and recommendation; failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 16-9; failed to respond to the

2

Court’s Order to Show Cause; and failed to appear at the hearing set for that Order, and having

3

weighed the factors set forth in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), the

4

Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Lin’s case for failure to prosecute. See Ghazali v. Moran,

5

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground

6

for dismissal.”). The Clerk shall terminate Plaintiff Lin Lee from this case.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: August 25, 2016.

9
10

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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
Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE