Choi v. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/2/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JAY JIA WEN CHOI,

Case No. 16-cv-04337-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE SYSTEMS
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On November 17, 2016, this Court declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation of

14

Magistrate Judge Cousins, recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute,

15

violation of several court orders, and failure to appear at a hearing. See ECF 21. At the time,

16

Plaintiff’s failings amounted to his failure to consent to or deny the jurisdiction of a U.S.

17

magistrate judge, his failure to appear at the September 21, 2016 hearing on the motion to dismiss,

18

and his failure to collaborate on a joint case management statement with Defendant’s counsel, all

19

in violation of valid court orders. Id. at 2. The Court explained that Plaintiff’s failure to appear

20

for the motion to dismiss hearing might have been due to excusable confusion, and that Plaintiff’s

21

other failings did not demonstrate that he had abandoned his claims. Id.

22

At the same time, the Court issued an order to show cause, ordering Plaintiff to advise the

23

Court in writing of his intent to pursue this case in federal court and consent to or deny the

24

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge on or before November 28, 2016. ECF 22. The Court also set a

25

case management conference for February 23, 2017. Id. In the order, the Court advised Plaintiff

26

that “[f]ailure to comply with any portion of this order shall result in dismissal of the case.” Id.

27
28

Despite this order, Plaintiff has continued the pattern of ignoring court orders. To date, the
Court has not received notice, in writing, of Plaintiff’s intent to pursue this case nor has Plaintiff

1

consented to or denied the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Accordingly, this action is

2

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,

3

356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the

4

court’s ultimatum . . . is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10

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
2