Opinion
16cv04790 (DF) 17cv02536 (DF) 19cv07601 (DF)
06-16-2021
CINDY CHEN, Plaintiff, v. SHANGHAI CAFÉ DELUXE, INC. d/b/a Shanghai Café, et al., Defendants. CINDY CHEN, Plaintiff, v. SHANGHAI CAFÉ DELUXE, INC. d/b/a Shanghai Café, et al., Defendants. SU PING YU a/k/a Amy Yu, Plaintiff, v. SHANGHAI DUMPLING, INC. d/b/a Shanghai Dumpling, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBRA FREEMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court will hold a telephonic case management conference in the three above-captioned cases on July 7, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Among other things, the purpose of this conference will be to address certain issues that arise from the pending motions for default judgments and attorneys' fees that have been filed in these actions by plaintiffs Cindy Chen and Su Ping Yu, a/k/a Amy Yu (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). For this conference, the parties are directed to call the following Toll-Free Number: (877) 411-9748 and use Access Code: 9612281.
The Court notes that the three pro se defendants - Yili Weng (variously named in these actions as Elie Wan, and as Yili Weng, a/k/a Eileen Weng), Ping Lin, and Xinsheng Gu, a/k/a John Gu (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) - have not provided their addresses or telephone numbers to the Court, despite having been directed to do so, and despite having been warned that their failure to inform the Court of their contact information could result in the entry of default judgments against them. (See Order, dated July 20, 2020, ¶ 2 (Dkt. 124 in No. 16cv04790; Dkt. 86 in No. 17cv02536; Dkt. 81 in No. 19cv07601.)) Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on each of the Individual Defendants by a means reasonably calculated to reach them, and to file proof of such service on the Docket of each of the above-captioned actions.
Although defendant Yili Weng has written to the Court on several occasions in the past, and, in certain instances, the case dockets include copies of her mailing envelopes, which show a return address, the Court does not view this as equivalent to her providing the Court with her preferred contact information for purposes of proceeding as a pro se litigant, especially as the purpose of her submissions was to request additional time to retain counsel (See, e.g., Dkt. 80 in No. 19cv07601), and as the Court issued its direction that she provide her contact information after it had received those earlier submissions.
The Individual Defendants are further cautioned that they have an obligation to participate in any conference scheduled by the Court, and their failure to appear for the July 7 telephone conference could also result in the entry of default judgments against them.
SO ORDERED.