Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07218/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07218-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

NURBU LAMA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW CENTURY FOUNDATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07218-JSC 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 41

Plaintiffs Nurbu Lama, Namygyal Dhondup and Zambala Inc. initiated this action in the 

Southern District of New York in March 2019. (Dkt. No. 1.) Lama and Dhondup allege they 

have been persecuted by defendant New Century Foundation. (Id. at 19.) Zambala is a Taiwanese 

company that “trades in commodities that serve the needs of the spiritual communities and public 

at large.” (Id.) Plaintiffs name a variety of defendants, including the New Century Foundation, 

various lawyers, Facebook and Go Daddy. The Southern District of New York described the 

factual allegations of the complaint as follows:

Plaintiff Nurbu describes himself as a Tibetan Buddhist guru 

or “lama.” (Affidavit of Lama Nurbu, sworn to Feb. 9, 2019 (“Nurbu 

Aff.”) (Dkt. 1), at 54.) At some point, Nurbu moved to California 

from India, where he had previously lived and taught at a monastery. 

(See Compl., at 19, 24.) After he relocated to this country, the first 

defendant with whom Nurbu came into contact was Chen, who “held 

herself out as a lawyer” at a time when Nurbu needed legal assistance 

related to his immigration status. (Id., at 24.) Chen introduced Nurbu 

to defendant Miao, who Nurbu alleges is the leader and founder of the 

defendant organization NCF. (Id., at 4, 20.) The Complaint essentially 

alleges that NCF is a criminal enterprise and that defendants Wang, 

Hong, and Chen, in addition to Miao, are all among its officers, 

employees, or associates. (See id., at 20-21.) Additionally, Plaintiffs 

allege that the Attorney Defendants acted on behalf of, or for the 

benefit of, the NCF Defendants to “further the conspiracy” in which 

the NCF Defendants were engaged. (See id., at 21-22.) 

Case 3:19-cv-07218-JSC Document 61 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 4
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

The alleged nature of this conspiracy is multifaceted. 

Plaintiffs allege that Nurbu was misled into joining NCF, thinking 

that it was a legitimate spiritual organization (id., at 24; see also id., 

at 23 (stating that Nurbu initially joined NCF “in the belief that [its] 

leader[, Miao,] was a Divine incarnation as she claimed”)), but was 

then detained by the organization as a virtual prisoner for an 

unspecified period (see id., at 24; Nurbu Aff., at 58, 60), sexually 

assaulted by Miao on one or more occasions (see Nurbu Aff., at 57), 

and forced to teach workshops on behalf of NCF without fair 

compensation (see id., at 59; see also id., at 64 (stating that $185 of 

Nurbu’s meager $300 monthly stipend was paid to NCF in rent)). 

Plaintiffs claim that Nurbu did not have freedom of movement during 

this period, stating that “[h]e [was] driven and taken to each of the 

teachings and workshops by the [NCF] Defendants” (Compl., at 25), 

that the NCF Defendants took possession of his passport when he was 

first inducted into their organization (id., at 24), and that he was not 

“permitted to leave the organization” and was instead “bound in 

lifelong servitude” (id., at 27). Plaintiffs also allege that the individual 

NCF Defendants exploited Nurbu’s status as a respected religious 

figure by publishing books and CDs in his name for their own profit. 

(Id., at 25-26.) 

After Nurbu had allegedly escaped the NCF Defendants’ 

imprisonment in October 2011 (see Nurbu Aff., at 65), Plaintiffs 

claim that the NCF Defendants sought to punish him (see Compl., at 

27) by filing two sexual-assault lawsuits against him in 2013 and 

2015, one or both of which appear to have been decided adversely to 

Nurbu (see Nurbu Aff., at 66, 71; see also id., at 73 (describing 

Nurbu’s uncertainty about the status of the 2015 case)). The NCF 

Defendants also allegedly engaged in a defamatory media campaign, 

using the digital platforms hosted by defendants GoDaddy and 

Facebook, in an effort to destroy Nurbu’s image “globally [and] 

especially in China.” (Nurbu Aff., at 69; Compl., at 22). The 

allegations with respect to plaintiffs Dhonup and Zambala are sparse 

and somewhat difficult to decipher. Broadly, Plaintiffs allege that 

Dhonup ran the company Zambala, which sold books and possibly 

other items at stores in the United States. (Affidavit of Namygyal 

Dhonup, sworn to Feb. 9, 2019 (“Dhonup Aff.”) (Dkt. 1), at 83.) 

Dhonup met Miao briefly in 2008 (id.), but no other interactions 

between the two are alleged until 2013, when Miao and unspecified 

associates engaged in a campaign to sully Dhonup’s image and 

ultimately force Zambala into bankruptcy (id., at 84-85).

(Dkt. No. 52 at 3-5.) 

By order filed August 14, 2019, the Southern District of New York ordered Plaintiffs to 

address several issues (“the August 14, 2019 Order”). First, unrepresented plaintiff Namygyal 

Dhondup had not provided the court with his contact information. Second, unrepresented 

corporate plaintiff Zambala Inc. could not prosecute the action unless an attorney enters an 

Case 3:19-cv-07218-JSC Document 61 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 4
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

appearance on Zambala’s behalf. Third, an attorney by the name of Kiran Meettook was making 

unauthorized submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs even though he had not made an appearance 

on their behalf. (Dkt. No. 45.) The court directed the plaintiffs to address these issues if they 

wished to proceed with the action. The same day attorney Meettook purported to file an 

interlocutory appeal of the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 46.)

A magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York subsequently issued a Report 

and Recommendation that the action be transferred to this District on the grounds that venue is not 

proper in the Southern District of New York (Dkt. No. 52), which was adopted by the assigned 

district court judge and the case transferred. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 55.)

Since the transfer, the plaintiffs have not cured any of the defects noted in the August 14, 

2019 Order. Specifically, unrepresented plaintiff Namygyal Dhondup has not provided the federal 

court with any contact information and no attorney has made an appearance on Dhondup’s behalf. 

No attorney has made an appearance on corporate plaintiff Zambala’s behalf. And attorney 

Meettook has not made an appearance on any plaintiffs behalf; indeed, attorney Meettook cannot 

do so without first being admitted pro hac vice. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11; see also In re Bundy, 

840 F.3d 1034, 1041–42 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Importantly, ‘[t]here is no right of federal origin that 

permits [out-of-state] lawyers to appear in state courts without meeting that State’s bar admission 

requirements.’” (quoting Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 443 (1979) (per curiam)), subsequent 

mandamus proceeding, 852 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2017)). Meettook’s repeated unilateral efforts to be 

added as a party plaintiff are not sufficient to give attorney Meettook the right to appear in this 

action (Dkt. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51), as only the current plaintiffs can amend the complaint and then 

only in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Finally, no plaintiff appeared for the initial case management conference scheduled for 

January 30, 2020, even though unrepresented defendant Chen personally appeared. (Dkt. No. 60)

Instead, on January 30, 2020, attorney Meettook filed an incomprehensible submission entitled 

“Matter Subject to Federal Jurisdiction Before the Supreme Court of New York 

1905/2020/Affidavit of Counsel Meettook.” (Dkt. No. 58.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 

Case 3:19-cv-07218-JSC Document 61 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for a failure to prosecute. In particular, Plaintiffs 

shall file a written submission on or before February 18, 2020 that explains why the action should 

not be dismissed for their failure to correct the deficiencies noted by the Southern District of New 

York court in the August 19, 2020 order and their failure to appear at the January 30, 2020 initial 

case management conference in this Court. Plaintiffs are warned that their failure to comply with 

this Order and/or to adequately explain their conduct in this action may lead this Court to issue a 

Report and Recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice for a failure to prosecute. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

Attorney Meettook is ordered not to file any more submissions in this action (except for a 

compliant application to appear pro hac vice) unless and until admitted to appear in this District 

pro hac vice. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 11. 

No defendant needs to appear or make any filings in this case until further order of the 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07218-JSC Document 61 Filed 02/03/20 Page 4 of 4