Shin v. Yoon

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 SU JUNG SHIN and HYUN JU SHIN, CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01371-AWI-SKO 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 10 v. DISMISSAL ROBERT YOUNG YOON, et al., 12 Defendants.

BOB YOUNG YOON, Counter-Claimants, v. HYUN JU SHIN, Counter-Defendants.

22 This case was brought in 2018 by Su Jung Shin and Hyun Ju Shin (“Plaintiffs”) against multiple defendants, including Robert (“Bob”) Young Yoon, Kyoung Mee Yoon, Kyoung Sup Yoon, Y&Y Property Management, Inc., The Victus Group, Inc., Blackstone Seattle, LLC, and Yoon & Yoon Investments, LLC (together, “Defendants”). Doc. No. 1. In 2019, Bob Young Yoon brought counterclaims against Plaintiffs. Doc. Nos. 45-47.

27 On March 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed Judicial Council of California Form EJ-100, which is |may have been intended to convey that the stipulated judgment that was ordered by the Court on |September 10, 2019, see Doc. No. 56, has been satisfied. The form in question, however, is for use |in California state court and the Court cannot determine—beyond mere surmise—what outcome |Plaintiffs intended to effect by filing it, without explanation, in this federal forum. Moreover, the |stipulated judgment to which the form appears to relate does not purport to resolve claims against |all Defendants and may not resolve all counterclaims. See Doc. Nos. 56 & 57.

7 In any event, there has been no docketed activity in this case of any kind since the form | was filed on March 4, 2021. See Doc. No. 90.

9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party wishing to continue this case in | any fashion shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of electronic |service of this order why the Court should not dismiss all remaining claims and /or counterclaims | with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If the required showing is not made within the specified | period of time, all remaining claims and / or counterclaims will be DISMISSED WITH | PREJUDICE and this case will be CLOSED, without further notice to the parties. See Henderson |v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for lack of | prosecution).

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dp | Dated: _ March 7, 2023 _ 7 : 7 Cb Led SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE