Lama v. New Century Foundation
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07218
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lama v. New Century Foundation, Judge Corley ordered plaintiffs to explain case-management failures or face possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Nurbu Lama, Namygyal Dhondup, and Zambala Inc., as well as attorney Kiran Meettook. It required the plaintiffs to explain their failures and restricted Meettook's filings; it stated that defendants did not need to appear or file anything until further order.
What happened
Lama v. New Century Foundation began in New York and was later transferred to the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged persecution and other misconduct by the defendants, but they did not correct several problems identified by the New York court.
One plaintiff had not provided contact information, the corporate plaintiff had no attorney, and attorney Kiran Meettook had not properly appeared. No plaintiff attended the January 30, 2020 case-management conference, and Meettook filed another submission instead.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the plaintiffs to submit a written explanation by February 18, 2020. She warned that failing to respond or provide an adequate explanation could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and she barred Meettook from filing further submissions unless admitted to appear.
The detailed version
- Lama v. New Century Foundation · No. 5:19-cv-07218
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Nurbu Lama, Namygyal Dhondup, and Zambala Inc. brought the action in the Southern District of New York in March 2019. The complaint named New Century Foundation, several individuals and lawyers, Facebook, and Go Daddy as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that Lama had been persecuted by New Century Foundation. The opinion recounts allegations that Lama was detained, sexually assaulted, required to teach workshops without fair compensation, deprived of freedom of movement, and subjected to efforts to damage his reputation. The allegations concerning Dhondup and Zambala were described as sparse and difficult to decipher.
The Southern District of New York later ordered the plaintiffs to address several case-management and representation problems. Dhondup, who was unrepresented, had not provided contact information. Zambala, a corporation, could not proceed without an attorney appearing for it. Kiran Meettook was making submissions without having entered an appearance. The New York court transferred the case to the Northern District of California after finding that venue was improper in New York.
Problems After Transfer
After the transfer, the plaintiffs had not corrected the identified defects. Dhondup still had not provided contact information, and no attorney had appeared for him. No attorney had appeared for Zambala. Meettook had not appeared for any plaintiff and had not been admitted to practice in the district. The opinion also states that no plaintiff appeared at the initial case-management conference on January 30, 2020, although defendant Chen appeared in person. Meettook instead filed a submission that the court described as incomprehensible.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a written submission by February 18, 2020 explaining why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute. The court warned that failure to comply with the order or to adequately explain the plaintiffs' conduct could lead to a Report and Recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the action in this order.
The court also ordered Meettook not to file further submissions in the action unless and until he was admitted to appear in the district, except for a compliant application to appear temporarily. The court stated that no defendant needed to appear or make filings until further order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.