Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05235/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05235-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alan Lee
Plaintiff
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05235-EMC 

ORDER RE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; AND 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION

Docket Nos. 12, 21

Currently pending before the Court is Judge James’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) 

in which she recommends that Plaintiff Alan Lee’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice 

based on a failure to prosecute and to comply with Court deadlines and orders. See Docket No. 21 

(R&R). Mr. Lee has objected to the R&R. For the reasons discussed below, the Court declines to 

adopt the R&R; however, the Court also compels the case to arbitration.

On November 23, 2015, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion to 

compel arbitration. See Docket No. 12 (motion). Under the Civil Local Rules, Mr. Lee’s 

opposition to the motion was due on December 7, 2015. Mr. Lee failed to file an opposition by 

that day, which prompted Judge James to issue an order to show cause (“OSC”) as to why the case 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court deadlines. Judge 

James instructed Mr. Lee to file a response to the OSC by December 17, 2015. See Docket No. 20 

(OSC). Mr. Lee failed to file a response to the OSC, and therefore Judge James issued her R&R, 

recommending that the case be dismissed (without prejudice). See Docket No. 21 (R&R).

On December 22, 2015, i.e., the day after the R&R was filed, Mr. Lee filed an objection to 

the R&R, in which he explained why he had failed to file a response to the OSC. See Docket No. 

24 (objection). The gist of the explanation is that there have been problems with ECF which led to 

Case 3:15-cv-05235-EMC Document 29 Filed 01/05/16 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

For the Northern District of California

his counsel not receiving e-mail notifications. Mr. Lee, however, failed to provide any 

explanation as to why he failed to file an opposition to Samsung’s motion to compel arbitration by 

December 7, 2015 (especially as that motion was served by e-mail and by mail) – the omission 

which resulted in Judge James issuing the OSC in the first place.

In light of the above circumstances, the Court rules as follows. The Court shall not dismiss 

Mr. Lee’s case based on a failure to prosecute. Mr. Lee’s current actions show that he has some 

level of investment in litigating the case on the merits. The Court also shall not dismiss the case 

based on a failure to comply with Court deadlines. Dismissal is a drastic sanction that is not 

appropriate at this point in the proceedings. 

That being said, Mr. Lee’s actions or rather his failure to act is not without any 

consequence. Samsung’s motion to compel was filed more than a month ago, and Mr. Lee has yet 

to file an opposition to the motion. Mr. Lee has not provided any explanation as to why he has not 

filed an opposition. The Court therefore deems Mr. Lee’s failure to respond as a concession that 

arbitration of his case is proper.

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to adopt Judge James’s R&R but GRANTS

Samsung’s motion to compel as unopposed. This case is STAYED pending arbitration.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 12 and 21. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05235-EMC Document 29 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2