Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04337-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

JAY JIA WEN CHOI,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE SYSTEMS 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04337-BLF 

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE COUSINS 

AND (2) TERMINATING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

[Re: ECF 7, 19]

On October 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Nathanel Cousins issued an order recommending 

that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, violation of several court orders, and failure to 

appear at a hearing. R. & R., ECF 19. Although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has failed to 

comply with several court orders, the Court declines to adopt the report and recommendation.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action in state court on June 14, 2016. See Compl., 

ECF 1-1. Defendant removed the case to this Court and filed a motion to dismiss shortly 

thereafter. See Notice of Removal, ECF 1; Mot., ECF 7. On August 11, 2016, several days after 

Defendant filed its motion to dismiss, it was served with a copy of an amended complaint that 

Plaintiff had filed in state court. First. Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF 8-1. The FAC was filed before 

Defendant removed the action to this Court, but Defendant was not aware of the filing at the time 

of removal because the FAC had not been served and did not appear on the Superior Court’s 

docket. ECF 8. After informing the Court of Plaintiff’s FAC, Defendant filed an answer to the 

FAC. Answer, ECF 9. 

The Court subsequently issued three separate orders to show cause (“OSC”) before issuing 

the instant recommendation regarding dismissal. On August 31, 2016, the Court instructed

Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff did not do. ECF 10. On 

September 14, 2016, the Court issued a second OSC, ordering Defendant to file a supplemental 

brief explaining how the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. ECF 11. Defendant 

responded to this OSC, and satisfied its burden of establishing the existence of federal subject 

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 21 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s deletion of his 

claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ECF 12. On September 

29, 2016, the Court issued a third OSC, warning Plaintiff that if he did not respond to Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss, collaborate with Defendant on a joint case management statement for the 

November 2, 2016 case management conference, or consent to or decline the jurisdiction of a U.S. 

magistrate judge, the case would be dismissed. ECF 15. After Plaintiff failed to comply with this 

OSC, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued the instant recommendation to dismiss the case.

Because the motion to dismiss was moot as a result of Plaintiff’s filing of an amended 

pleading, the Court now TERMINATES the motion to dismiss. Although Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the OSCs directing him to respond to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was not in 

violation of any rules of procedure in failing to respond to the motion because it was moot. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s failings amount to his failure to consent to or deny the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate 

judge, his failure to appear at the September 21, 2016 hearing on the motion to dismiss, and his 

failure to collaborate on a joint case management statement with Defendant’s counsel, all in 

violation of valid court orders. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the motion to 

dismiss hearing may have been due to the confusion caused by the filing of an amended complaint 

and answer prior to the hearing date. 

Additionally, although the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding a 

joint case management statement and to submit a consent/declination form were valid, this Court 

cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s failings are tantamount to abandonment of his claims. Thus, in 

recognition of Plaintiff’s pro se status, this Court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the 

case. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the recommendation to dismiss the case. A 

separate order to show cause shall issue instructing the parties as to further steps.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04337-BLF Document 21 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 2