Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04946/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04946-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 Plaintiffs note that PFC Lau did not include a letter or other communication

from her commanding officer with her request for a stay. See 50 App. U.S.C. §

522(b)(2)(B). PFC Lau, however, did submit a document setting forth her orders, which

does not suggest that she would be authorized for military leave. In light of the Plaintiffs’

lack of opposition to a 90 day stay, the Court shall not deny the request based on any

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WEI-MAN RAYMOND TSE, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04946 JSW

ORDER STAYING ACTION AS

TO DEFENDANT MOLLY LAU

On October 30, 2007, this Court received a letter dated October 23, 2007, from

Defendant, Private First Class Molly Lau (“PFC Lau”), in which she advised the Court that she

is a member of the United States Army currently serving in an overseas tour in Korea and

requested that the Court stay this action pursuant to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act, 50

App. U.S.C. § 522.

On November 7, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this action

should not be stayed either in part, as to PFC Lau, or in its entirety. On November 29, 2007, the

Court extended the deadline by which responses to that Order to Show Cause would be due

until December 21, 2007.

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ response to the Order to Show Cause, in which they

state they do not oppose a 90 day stay as to PFC Lau but do oppose a stay as to the other 

Defendants.1

 No other responses have been received. 

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 2
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 technical defects in the application. However, all future requests shall strictly comply with

the provisions of 50 App. U.S.C. § 522.

2

Having considered the Plaintiffs’ position, and there being no response from any

Defendant, the Court finds good cause to grant the 90 day stay as to PFC Lau. If PFC Lau

requests a further stay, she shall submit a request for further stay pursuant to 50 App. U.S.C. §

522(d). 

At this stage, the Court cannot say that allowing the action to proceed against the other

Defendants would prejudice PFC Lau. Therefore, at this time, the Court shall not stay the

action in its entirety. If in the future, it appears to PFC Lau or to this Court, that permitting the

action to proceed against the other Defendants will result in prejudice to PFC Lau, the Court

shall revisit this decision. 

Plaintiffs are FURTHER ORDERED to serve a copy of this Order on all Defendants and

to file proof of such service with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2