Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

Case No.16-cv-04337 NC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAY JIA WEN CHOI,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE 

SYSTEMS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-04337 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 7

The purpose of this order is to caution plaintiff Jay Jia Wen Choi that if he does not 

pursue his case, the Court will dismiss it. The Court notes that Choi did not respond to 

Lockheed’s motion to dismiss and did not appear at the September 21 hearing on the 

motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 

action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with any order of the court.

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 

F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to meet 

court deadline). In determining if a Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate, a court must 

weigh: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Omstead v. Dell, 

Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four 

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No.16-cv-04337 NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 

Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, Choi has failed to:

• Respond to defendant Lockheed Martin’s motion to dismiss, filed on August 

8, 2016. Dkt. No. 7.

• Respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dated August 31, 2016,

instructing Choi to consent or decline the Court’s jurisdiction and respond to 

Lockheed’s motion to dismiss by September 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 10.

• Appear at the September 21, 2016, hearing on Lockheed’s motion to 

dismiss.

The Court instructs Choi to respond to Lockheed’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 7. 

The Court also reminds Choi to return by October 3, 2016, the form consenting or 

declining this court’s jurisdiction over this case. A copy is attached. In addition, Choi 

must confer with Lockheed’s counsel to collaborate on a joint case management statement 

due to the Court on October 26, 2016, for the case management conference scheduled on 

November 2, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in San Jose Courtroom 7. Choi must personally appear at

the conference. The Court warns Choi that if he does not comply with this order, the Court 

will dismiss Choi’s complaint for failure to prosecute. 

Because Choi is representing himself, the Court reminds him of the services 

available to him. Those services are:

• The Federal Pro Se Program at the San Jose Courthouse providing free

information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal

civil cases. The Program is available by appointment and on a drop-in 

basis, and is available at Room 2070 in the San Jose United States 

Courthouse (Monday to Thursday 1:00 – 4:00 pm, on Friday by

appointment only), and at The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N.

3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA (Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 

pm, on Friday by appointment only), or by calling (408) 297-1480.

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No.16-cv-04337 NC 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

• Online resources available on the court’s webpage. The Pro Se Handbook, 

found at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook, has a 

downloadable version of the court’s own publication: Representing 

Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants. Pay special 

attention to the Civil Litigation Packets tab on the left, which provides 

useful fillable forms. The Pro Se Handbook website also has a link to the

Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) website.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 15 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3