From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:22-cv-06391-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-06391-CJC-RAO

10-24-2022

Kum Nam Lee, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Proland Management, Defendant(s)/Respondent(s).


ORDER OF DISMISSAL OR REMAND

The Court previously received from [X] Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) [ ] Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):

[ ] an IFP Request with no accompanying Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal.
[X] a Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal without an accompanying IFP Request or payment of the filing fees.
[ ] a Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal with a partial filing fee payment for an amount less than the full fee.

The Court sent a warning letter to [X] Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) [ ] Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) advising that failure to correct this deficiency within THIRTY DAYS from the date of the warning letter would result in dismissal or remand of this case. More than THIRTY DAYS have now passed, and the deficiency has not been corrected.

Accordingly, this case is HEREBY ORDERED

[X] DISMISSED without prejudice.

[ ] REMANDED to the ______.


Summaries of

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

United States District Court, Central District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:22-cv-06391-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Lee v. Proland Mgmt.

Case Details

Full title:Kum Nam Lee, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Proland Management…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-06391-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)