Case Name: In re Kit B. LEE, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-25
Citations: 468 F. App'x 127
Docket Number: No. 12-2170
Parties: In re Kit B. LEE, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and YANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 468
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
In re Kit B. LEE, Petitioner.
No. 12-2170.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. RApp. P. May 17, 2012.
Opinion filed: May 25, 2012.
Kit B. Lee, South Amoby, NJ, pro se.
Michael J. Gesualdo, Esq., Leda D. Wet-tre, Esq., Robinson, Wettre & Miller, Newark, NJ, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and YANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In November 2009, the petitioner, Kit Lee, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Lee also asserted a state-law defamation claim. The District Court subsequently dismissed the complaint due to Lee's failure to comply with several discovery orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. Upon review, this Court affirmed. Lee v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 455 Fed. Appx. 199 (3d Cir.2011).
Lee now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on the merits of her complaint. Lee contends that our previous order affirming the District Court's dismissal of the complaint created a "judicial stalemate," and argues that we are obligated to "fix the stalemate" by ordering the lower court to reopen proceedings. Lee evidently misunderstands the judicial process; as noted above, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 37, and this Court affirmed. There is no "stalemate."
Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.