Lama v. New Century Foundation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NURBU LAMA, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07218-JSC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW 9 v. CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 10 NEW CENTURY FOUNDATION, et al., FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiffs Nurbu Lama, Namygyal Dhondup and Zambala Inc. initiated this action in the 14 Southern District of New York in March 2019. (Dkt. No. 1.) Lama and Dhondup allege they 15 have been persecuted by defendant New Century Foundation. (Id. at 19.) Zambala is a Taiwanese 16 company that “trades in commodities that serve the needs of the spiritual communities and public 17 at large.” (Id.) Plaintiffs name a variety of defendants, including the New Century Foundation, 18 various lawyers, Facebook and Go Daddy. The Southern District of New York described the 19 factual allegations of the complaint as follows: 20 Plaintiff Nurbu describes himself as a Tibetan Buddhist guru 21 or “lama.” (Affidavit of Lama Nurbu, sworn to Feb. 9, 2019 (“Nurbu Aff.”) (Dkt. 1), at 54.) At some point, Nurbu moved to California 22 from India, where he had previously lived and taught at a monastery. (See Compl., at 19, 24.) After he relocated to this country, the first 23 defendant with whom Nurbu came into contact was Chen, who “held herself out as a lawyer” at a time when Nurbu needed legal assistance 24 related to his immigration status. (Id., at 24.) Chen introduced Nurbu to defendant Miao, who Nurbu alleges is the leader and founder of the 25 defendant organization NCF. (Id., at 4, 20.) The Complaint essentially alleges that NCF is a criminal enterprise and that defendants Wang, 26 Hong, and Chen, in addition to Miao, are all among its officers, employees, or associates. (See id., at 20-21.) Additionally, Plaintiffs 27 allege that the Attorney Defendants acted on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the NCF Defendants to “further the conspiracy” in which 1 The alleged nature of this conspiracy is multifaceted. Plaintiffs allege that Nurbu was misled into joining NCF, thinking 2 that it was a legitimate spiritual organization (id., at 24; see also id., at 23 (stating that Nurbu initially joined NCF “in the belief that [its] 3 leader[, Miao,] was a Divine incarnation as she claimed”)), but was then detained by the organization as a virtual prisoner for an 4 unspecified period (see id., at 24; Nurbu Aff., at 58, 60), sexually assaulted by Miao on one or more occasions (see Nurbu Aff., at 57), 5 and forced to teach workshops on behalf of NCF without fair compensation (see id., at 59; see also id., at 64 (stating that $185 of 6 Nurbu’s meager $300 monthly stipend was paid to NCF in rent)). Plaintiffs claim that Nurbu did not have freedom of movement during 7 this period, stating that “[h]e [was] driven and taken to each of the teachings and workshops by the [NCF] Defendants” (Compl., at 25), 8 that the NCF Defendants took possession of his passport when he was first inducted into their organization (id., at 24), and that he was not 9 “permitted to leave the organization” and was instead “bound in lifelong servitude” (id., at 27). Plaintiffs also allege that the individual 10 NCF Defendants exploited Nurbu’s status as a respected religious figure by publishing books and CDs in his name for their own profit. 11 (Id., at 25-26.) 12 After Nurbu had allegedly escaped the NCF Defendants’ imprisonment in October 2011 (see Nurbu Aff., at 65), Plaintiffs 13 claim that the NCF Defendants sought to punish him (see Compl., at 27) by filing two sexual-assault lawsuits against him in 2013 and 14 2015, one or both of which appear to have been decided adversely to Nurbu (see Nurbu Aff., at 66, 71; see also id., at 73 (describing 15 Nurbu’s uncertainty about the status of the 2015 case)). The NCF Defendants also allegedly engaged in a defamatory media campaign, 16 using the digital platforms hosted by defendants GoDaddy and Facebook, in an effort to destroy Nurbu’s image “globally [and] 17 especially in China.” (Nurbu Aff., at 69; Compl., at 22). The allegations with respect to plaintiffs Dhonup and Zambala are sparse 18 and somewhat difficult to decipher. Broadly, Plaintiffs allege that Dhonup ran the company Zambala, which sold books and possibly 19 other items at stores in the United States. (Affidavit of Namygyal Dhonup, sworn to Feb. 9, 2019 (“Dhonup Aff.”) (Dkt. 1), at 83.) 20 Dhonup met Miao briefly in 2008 (id.), but no other interactions between the two are alleged until 2013, when Miao and unspecified 21 associates engaged in a campaign to sully Dhonup’s image and ultimately force Zambala into bankruptcy (id., at 84-85). 22 23 (Dkt. No. 52 at 3-5.) 24 By order filed August 14, 2019, the Southern District of New York ordered Plaintiffs to 25 address several issues (“the August 14, 2019 Order”). First, unrepresented plaintiff Namygyal 26 Dhondup had not provided the court with his contact information. Second, unrepresented 27 corporate plaintiff Zambala Inc. could not prosecute the action unless an attorney enters an 1 appearance on Zambala’s behalf. Third, an attorney by the name of Kiran Meettook was making 2 unauthorized submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs even though he had not made an appearance 3 on their behalf. (Dkt. No. 45.) The court directed the plaintiffs to address these issues if they 4 wished to proceed with the action. The same day attorney Meettook purported to file an 5 interlocutory appeal of the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 46.) 6 A magistrate judge for the Southern District of New York subsequently issued a Report 7 and Recommendation that the action be transferred to this District on the grounds that venue is not 8 proper in the Southern District of New York (Dkt. No. 52), which was adopted by the assigned 9 district court judge and the case transferred. (Dkt. Nos. 54, 55.) 10 Since the transfer, the plaintiffs have not cured any of the defects noted in the August 14, 11 2019 Order. Specifically, unrepresented plaintiff Namygyal Dhondup has not provided the federal 12 court with any contact information and no attorney has made an appearance on Dhondup’s behalf. 13 No attorney has made an appearance on corporate plaintiff Zambala’s behalf. And attorney 14 Meettook has not made an appearance on any plaintiffs behalf; indeed, attorney Meettook cannot 15 do so without first being admitted pro hac vice. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 11; see also In re Bundy, 16 840 F.3d 1034, 1041–42 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Importantly, ‘[t]here is no right of federal origin that 17 permits [out-of-state] lawyers to appear in state courts without meeting that State’s bar admission 18 requirements.’” (quoting Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 443 (1979) (per curiam)), subsequent 19 mandamus proceeding, 852 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2017)). Meettook’s repeated unilateral efforts to be 20 added as a party plaintiff are not sufficient to give attorney Meettook the right to appear in this 21 action (Dkt. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51), as only the current plaintiffs can amend the complaint and then 22 only in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 23 Finally, no plaintiff appeared for the initial case management conference scheduled for 24 January 30, 2020, even though unrepresented defendant Chen personally appeared. (Dkt. No. 60) 25 Instead, on January 30, 2020, attorney Meettook filed an incomprehensible submission entitled 26 “Matter Subject to Federal Jurisdiction Before the Supreme Court of New York 27 1905/2020/Affidavit of Counsel Meettook.” (Dkt. No. 58.) 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for a failure to prosecute. In particular, Plaintiffs 2 shall file a written submission on or before February 18, 2020 that explains why the action should 3 not be dismissed for their failure to correct the deficiencies noted by the Southern District of New 4 || York court in the August 19, 2020 order and their failure to appear at the January 30, 2020 initial 5 |} case management conference in this Court. Plaintiffs are warned that their failure to comply with 6 || this Order and/or to adequately explain their conduct in this action may lead this Court to issue a 7 Report and Recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice for a failure to prosecute. 8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. 9 Attorney Meettook is ordered not to file any more submissions in this action (except for a 10 || compliant application to appear pro hac vice) unless and until admitted to appear in this District 11 pro hac vice. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 11. 12 No defendant needs to appear or make any filings in this case until further order of the 5 13 Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: February 3, 2020 16 . 8 ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28