Opinion
CASE NO: SACV-14-0138 RSWL
02-13-2015
KANG SHEN CHEN, Plaintiff, v. T.T. GROUP, a California Corporation; JASON CHEN, an Individual; JENNIFER CHEN, and Individual; STEWART FAHMY, an Individual, VICTORIA BOOKE, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
VICTORIA L.H. BOOKE, SB#142518 BOOKE & AJLOUNY 606 North First Street San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-7000 Facsimile: (408) 286-7111 Attorneys for Defendant VICTORIA BOOKE
VICTORIA L.H. BOOKE, SB#142518
BOOKE & AJLOUNY
606 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 286-7000
Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
Attorneys for Defendant
VICTORIA BOOKE
JUDGMENT
This lawsuit was originally filed on January 31, 2014. Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff Kang-Shen Chen brought six claims against Defendants T.T. Group, Jason Chen, Jennifer Chen, Stewart Fahmy, and Victoria Booke: three claims for fraud, two claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and one claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1964.
On June 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Victoria Booke's motion to dismiss, dismissing the state law claims and § 1983 claims against Ms. Booke with prejudice and dismissing the RICO claim because it was time-barred. See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss at 1- 3, June 20, 2014 ("June 20, 2014 Order") (Dkt. 14).
Mr. Chen then filed a First Amended Complaint on July 18, 2014, alleging a single RICO claim. First Am. Compl. ("FAC") (Dkt. 19). Defendant Booke again filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 20). The Court granted the motion as unopposed on August 28, 2014 (Dkt. 24).
Mr. Chen then filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 22, 2014, again alleging a single RICO claim. Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") (Dkt. 28). Defendants Booke, T.T. Group, and Jennifer Chen filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 30).
On November 4, 2014, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice because Mr. Chen's opposition was filed late (Dkt. 34). In said order, the Court provided that "If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or again fails to time respond to a subsequent motion to dismiss, this Court shall dismiss the complaint WITH PREJUDICE."
Plaintiff then brought Rule 60(b)(1), (6) motion for relief. On January 15, 2015, this Court denied that motion based upon Plaintiff's failure to timely file oppositions, and further held that even the opposition had been timely, or if the Court had overlooked the tardiness of Plaintiff's opposition, the Court "would still have granted the motion on the merits and would still have dismissed Mr. Chen's complaint with prejudice." (Dkt. 40)
Plaintiff then brought a Request for Rehearing, which this Court denied on or about February 3, 2015. (Dkt. 42)
Plaintiff's complaint having been dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, FINAL JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED in favor of Defendants and costs awarded to Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: February 13, 2015
/s/_________
Hon. David O. Carter
United States District Court Judge