Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00197/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00197-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00197 RMW

SPT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-Filed on: 9/11/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HUSEYIN ZENKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-06-00197 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket No. 18]

Pending before this court is defendant Sony Electronics, Inc.'s ("Sony") motion to dismiss

plaintiff Huseyin Zenkin's ("Zenkin") complaint for failure to state a claim and the court's June 23,

2006 Order to Show Cause. Both matters were set for hearing September 8, 2006. Plaintiff did not

file opposition to defendant's motion or comply with the filing required by the court's Order to Show

Cause. Plaintiff did not appear for the hearings. The court has read the papers filed by the parties

and considered their arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS defendant's

motion to dismiss. The action is dismissed without further leave to amend.

This is the third action Zenkin has filed against Sony based on the same transaction and

operative facts—his termination of employment from Sony. Zenkin's first action was filed March

Case 5:06-cv-00197-RMW Document 26 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Where an action is dismissed without specifying whether the suit was dismissed with or

without prejudice, the dismissal operates as a dismissal with prejudice. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

2

 Notably, the parties had filed a joint case management conference statement just ten days

before on June 16, 2006. Zenkin made no indication at that time (or any other time before the

conference) that he would not be able to attend the June 23, 2006 case management conference. 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00197 RMW

SPT 2

18, 2003. On August 23, 2003 the court granted Sony's motion to dismiss with thirty days leave to

amend. Zenkin did not amend his complaint and on April 7, 2005 the court dismissed Zenkin's case

without prejudice for failure to diligently prosecute. Zenkin's filed a second action on April 15,

2005. In August 2005 Sony moved to dismiss the complaint. Zenkin did not oppose the motion, did

not appear for the motion hearing, and did not seek leave to amend. On November 3, 2005 the court

granted the unopposed motion to dismiss on the grounds asserted in the motion.1

On January 11, 2006 Zenkin filed the present action, again based on his termination of

employment from Sony. Zenkin failed to appear for the scheduled June 23, 2006 case management

conference and the court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiff to appear on September

8, 2006.2 That same day Sony filed the present motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Sony

seeks dismissal without leave to amend. Zenkin has failed to comply with the Order to Show Cause

and did not appear for the hearing. Zenkin did not file opposition to the motion and did not appear

for the hearing. The court finds that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate. The action is

dismissed with prejudiced; any further filings would be untimely. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss. The action is

dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: 9/8/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00197-RMW Document 26 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-06-00197 RMW

SPT 3

Notice of this document has been sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Huseyin Zenkin 

6 Northampton Place 

Coto De Caza, CA 92676 

PRO SE

Counsel for Defendants:

Sarah Elizabeth Armstrong

Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Patricia K. Gillette 

Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/11/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00197-RMW Document 26 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 3