Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04768/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04768-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

MARIA W. LEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN 

LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs Maria Lee, Wen Lee, and Lin Lee (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Retail 

Store Employee Building Corporation (“Retail Store”); Casa del Pueblo Apartment (“CDP”); and 

Barcelon Associates Management Corp (“Barcelon”). The instant Order pertains only to Plaintiff 

Lin Lee (“Lin”). 

Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on October 15, 2015. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on May 2, 2016. ECF No. 52 (“FAC”). On May 9, 

2016, Preservation Partners Management Group, Inc. (“PPMG”), a Defendant that was named in 

the FAC and that was previously in this case, filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 

2016, Maria and Wen stipulated to dismiss PPMG with prejudice. ECF No. 71. Lin, however, did 

not file a response or opposition to PPMG’s motion for summary judgment. U.S. Magistrate 

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 99 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Judge Howard Lloyd, to whom this action was originally assigned, found PPMG’s motion for 

summary judgment well-founded in fact and in law. Consequently, Judge Lloyd issued a Report 

and Recommendation which recommended that PPMG’s motion for summary judgment be 

granted as to Lin. ECF No. 79. The instant action was reassigned to the undersigned judge on 

June 21, 2016. ECF No. 80.

Lin did not object to Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, on July 6, 

2016, the Court adopted Judge Lloyd’s Report and Recommendation in full. ECF No. 83. Lin did 

not appeal the Court’s July 6, 2016 Order. 

On May 13, 2016, the remaining Defendants—Retail Store, CDP, and Barcelon—moved 

to dismiss the FAC. Lin did not file a response or opposition to these motions to dismiss. In 

addition, on July 28, 2016, the parties filed a joint case management statement. ECF No. 92. Lin 

did not participate in the preparation of this statement. As counsel for Maria and Wen explained, 

Lin is “unrepresented in this matter and . . . Maria and Wen[’s] . . . counsel ha[ve] not been able to 

meet and confer with her.” Id. at 1. Lin’s failure to participate in preparing the joint case 

management statement was in violation of Civil Local Rule 16-9. See Civil L.R. 16-9(a) 

(requiring all parties to meet, confer, and prepare a joint case management statement at least seven 

days in advance of the case management conference).

In light of the foregoing, the Court granted, on August 5, 2016, Retail Store, CDP, and 

Barcelon’s motions to dismiss the FAC as to Lin without prejudice. The Court also ordered Lin to 

show cause why she should not be dismissed with prejudice from this action for failure to 

prosecute. ECF No. 93. Specifically, the Court ordered Lin to respond to the Order to Show 

Cause by August 19, 2016, and to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing, set for August 25, 

2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Court noted that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause and failure 

to appear at the August 25, 2016 hearing would result in Lin being dismissed with prejudice. Lin 

has not responded to the Order to Show Cause and did not appear at the August 25, 2016 hearing.

Considering that Lin has failed to oppose PPMG’s motion for summary judgment; failed to 

oppose Barcelon, CDP, and Retail Store’s motions to dismiss; failed to object to Judge Lloyd’s 

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 99 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-CV-04768-LHK 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF LIN LEE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

report and recommendation; failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 16-9; failed to respond to the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause; and failed to appear at the hearing set for that Order, and having 

weighed the factors set forth in Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002), the 

Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Lin’s case for failure to prosecute. See Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 

for dismissal.”). The Clerk shall terminate Plaintiff Lin Lee from this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2016. 

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 99 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3