Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05215/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05215-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CHAN LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MTC

FINANCIAL, INC., dba Trustee Corps, and

DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-05215 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND

VACATING HEARING

Plaintiff Jason Chan Lee filed this action for wrongful foreclosure in October 2015 in

Santa Clara Superior Court. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. removed the action to

federal court here in San Francisco, where it was assigned to Judge Ronald M. Whyte. 

In June 2016, a court-appointed receiver filed a notice that the law firm of plaintiff’s

attorney, Charles Thomas Marshall, had been placed into receivership by the Federal Trade

Commission (Dkt. No. 33). The notice sought a ninety-day stay of proceedings so that Lee

could secure new counsel. Judge Whyte granted the request for a stay. That order provided,

“[p]laintiff is ordered to file a status report in this case by September 26, 2016” (Dkt. No. 34). 

On September 26, Attorney Marshall, on behalf of Lee, stated he intended to resolve the

issue of Lee’s representation by December 5, the date of the case management conference in the

FTC matter against his firm (Dkt. No. 35). Lee himself filed no status report. 

Case 3:15-cv-05215-WHA Document 42 Filed 12/14/16 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

2

On November 3, following Judge Whyte’s retirement, this action was reassigned to the

undersigned judge (Dkt. No. 37). On November 14, more than ninety days after the ninety-day

stay had been imposed, JPMorgan moved to dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to

prosecute (Dkt. No. 38). On November 16, defendant MTC Financial, Inc., joined that motion

(Dkt. No. 39). 

Lee’s response to the motion to dismiss was due on November 28. Now, more than two

weeks later, no response to the motion has been filed. Nor has Lee provided any update about

the issues in his representation while his counsel’s firm is in receivership. (In fact, neither Lee

nor his counsel have filed anything since September 26.)

Lee’s failure to retain new counsel during the ninety-day stay demonstrates his lack of

interest in this case. That lack of interest is underscored by his failure to respond to the instant

motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Rule 41(b), this action is DISMISSED. Judgment will follow.

The hearing scheduled for December 22 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-05215-WHA Document 42 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 2