You're viewing Docket Item 33 from the case Nguyen v. ICORE International, Inc. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case5:12-cv-04983-HRL Document33 Filed08/20/13 Page1 of 4











































*E-FILED: August 20, 2013*











NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

v.

Plaintiff,

CHANH NGUYEN,




ICORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,


____________________________________/

Defendant.





No. C12-04983 HRL


ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE



Based on a declaration submitted by defendant that plaintiff had refused to accept any
written communications from defendant’s counsel, engage in substantive oral communication,
appear for a conference call with the Court’s ADR Director, respond to any written discovery, or
appear for a deposition, the Court issued an Order setting a Case Management Conference for July
30, 2013. (Dkt. 24). The Court ordered the parties to appear in person, and mailed a copy of the
Order to plaintiff.

Plaintiff apparently received the mailing, but did not open it. He sent a letter to the Court in
response and included with his letter the unopened envelope. He wrote “Return to Sender” on the
envelope and stated in his letter: “I am sorry to inform you that I never have concerned to your
Office . . . Therefore I return to you your unlawful and unreasonable letter that you mailed . . . and
please don’t disturb me again.” (Dkt. 26).

The Court held the Case Management Conference on July 30, 2013 and plaintiff did not

appear. Defendant reported that plaintiff had continued to refuse to engage in any form of


t
r
u
o
C


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U


f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F



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



t
r
u
o
C


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U


f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F



Case5:12-cv-04983-HRL Document33 Filed08/20/13 Page2 of 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


communication, and had returned all of defendant’s written communications in their unopened
envelopes.

Because of plaintiff’s failure to take the necessary steps to prosecute his own case, including

communicating with the Court and appearing at the Case Management Conference, the Court was
prepared to dismiss plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The
Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal For Failure to Prosecute and ordered plaintiff to
submit a response and appear at an Order to Show Cause Hearing set for August 20, 2013. The
Court ordered plaintiff to appear at the hearing and show cause, if any, why this case should not be
dismissed. The Court further cautioned plaintiff that “failure to appear at the hearing will serve as
further grounds for dismissing the case.” (Dkt. 29).

Plaintiff did submit a response to the Order to Show Cause. Though the response is largely

incomprehensible, plaintiff does seem to say that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) represents him, that he has been waiting for the EEOC to proceed, and that
the EEOC should be contacted directly. Plaintiff returns to the Court its Order to Show Cause and
states that it does not relate to his EEOC proceeding. He also states that all of the Court’s Orders,
and correspondence from opposing counsel, have violated his Right To Sue from the EEOC.1
Plaintiff did not appear at the August 20, 2013 Order to Show Cause Hearing.

Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause does not excuse his continuing failure to
prosecute his case. As to his belief that someone from the EEOC represents him, the Court notes
that two different non-EEOC attorneys have represented him in this matter. Before this matter was
removed, plaintiff apparently fired his first attorney in the middle of a hearing. Plaintiff then
retained new counsel, who represented plaintiff until the Court granted counsel’s motion to
withdraw in February 2013. When the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, it instructed
plaintiff or his new counsel to file an appearance within 21 days. Further, with his response to the
Order To Show Cause, plaintiff included a letter from the EEOC stating that “[t]he EEOC does not


1 Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause concludes by stating “[b]y the way, I hereby
enclose[] all the copies of the Office of the Clerk U.S. District Court – Northern District of
California’s letters, and Wolfram Workplace Law’s letters because these letters violated my Right-
To-Sue in the processing of EEOC # 550-2011-00521C under the EEOC Intake Supervisor Eric
Darious’s supervision.” (Dkt. 30, p. 3).

2


t
r
u
o
C


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U


f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F



Case5:12-cv-04983-HRL Document33 Filed08/20/13 Page3 of 4



provide private citizens with attorneys.” (Dkt. 30, p. 7). Plaintiff does not appear to have a basis for
his belief that someone from the EEOC represents him, and his response to the Order to Show
Cause gives the Court no indication that he intends to pursue his claims in federal court.

Defendant has asked the Court to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. As plaintiff has
refused to participate in discovery and has repeatedly rejected this Court’s attempts to manage the
case, the Court grants defendant’s request. The case is dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2013




HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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


3


t
r
u
o
C


a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U


f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F



Case5:12-cv-04983-HRL Document33 Filed08/20/13 Page4 of 4



C12-04983 HRL Order will be electronically mailed to:
Michael Lewis Wolfram [email protected]

C12-04983 HRL Order will be mailed to:

Chanh Nguyen
3144 King Street, Apt# 3
Berkeley, CA 94703

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

















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


4