Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAY JIA WEN CHOI,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE SYSTEMS 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04337-BLF 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 23 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2