Shin v. Yoon ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 SU JUNG SHIN and HYUN JU SHIN, CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00381-AWI-SKO 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 10 v. DISMISSAL 11 ROBERT YOUNG YOON, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 BOB YOUNG YOON, 14 Counter-Claimants, 15 v. 16 HYUN JU SHIN, 17 Counter-Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 This case was brought in 2018 by Su Jung Shin and Hyun Ju Shin (“Plaintiffs”) against 23 multiple defendants, including Robert (“Bob”) Young Yoon, Kyoung Mee Yoon, Kyoung Sup 24 Yoon, Y&Y Property Management, Inc., The Victus Group, Inc., Blackstone Seattle, LLC, and 25 Yoon & Yoon Investments, LLC (together, “Defendants”). Doc. No. 1. In 2019, Bob Young 26 Yoon, Y&Y Property Management, Kyoung Mee Yoon and Kyoung Sup Yoon brought 27 counterclaims against Plaintiffs. Doc. Nos. 45 & 46. 1 entitled “Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment.” Doc. No. 89. It appears that this filing 2 |may have been intended to convey that the stipulated judgment that was ordered by the Court on 3 |September 10, 2019, see Doc. No. 59, has been satisfied. The form in question, however, is for use 4 |in California state court and the Court cannot determine—beyond mere surmise—what outcome 5 | Plaintiffs intended to effect by filing it, without explanation, in this federal forum. Moreover, the 6 stipulated judgment to which the form appears to relate does not purport to resolve claims against 7 | all Defendants and may not resolve all counterclaims. See Doc. Nos. 56 & 57. 8 In any event, there has been no docketed activity in this case of any kind since the form 9 | was filed on March 4, 2021. See Doc. No. 89. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party wishing to continue this case in 11 | any fashion shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of electronic 12 |service of this order why the Court should not dismiss all remaining claims and /or counterclaims 13 | with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If the required showing is not made within the specified 14 | period of time, all remaining claims and / or counterclaims will be DISMISSED WITH 15 | PREJUDICE and this case will be CLOSED, without further notice to the parties. See Henderson 16 |v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for lack of 17 | prosecution). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dp 99 Dated: _March 7, 2023 _ 7 : 7 Cb Led SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28