Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On February 19, 2026, plaintiff Ning Bo Free Trade Zone Jiayu Chunhua Venture Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership) filed the underlying action in California state court against defendants Ying Wu and Wenhong Wu. The complaint named both individuals as defendants, though the court notes they are not related. The case proceeded in state court for approximately four months before removal.
On June 18, 2026, defendant Ying Wu removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the notice of removal, Ying Wu represented that co-defendant Wenhong Wu had not been served with the summons and complaint and had not appeared in the state court action. The case was assigned to Judge Maxine M. Chesney. By separate order dated October 21, 2026 (Doc. No. 24), the court dismissed plaintiff's claims against Ying Wu for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving Wenhong Wu as the sole remaining defendant.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiff to explain in writing, no later than November 13, 2026, why its claims against Wenhong Wu should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court found that, as of the date of the order, plaintiff had submitted no evidence that Wenhong Wu had been served with process or had appeared in the action since removal to federal court.
The order reflects the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and dismiss actions for failure to prosecute. With the dismissal of the only served defendant (Ying Wu) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and no evidence of service on or appearance by the remaining defendant (Wenhong Wu) over four months after removal, the court determined that the case against Wenhong Wu has not been actively prosecuted. The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating good cause to avoid dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- The court will dismiss claims against unserved defendants for failure to prosecute unless plaintiff shows good cause by the November 13, 2026 deadline.
- Removal by one defendant does not relieve plaintiff of the obligation to serve and prosecute claims against co-defendants.
- The prior dismissal of co-defendant Ying Wu for lack of personal jurisdiction leaves the case with no properly served defendant.
- Plaintiff has had over four months since removal (and approximately eight months since filing) to effect service on Wenhong Wu.
- The order to show cause is a procedural step preceding potential dismissal under Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent authority.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the court's active docket management when a removed case lacks any served or appearing defendant. The dismissal of the removing defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction creates a procedural vacuum: the case is in federal court but no defendant has been properly brought before it. The plaintiff's failure to serve Wenhong Wu in state court before removal, or to take steps to serve or substitute service after removal, exposes the entire action to dismissal.
The ruling underscores that plaintiffs bear the continuous obligation to prosecute claims against all named defendants, regardless of co-defendant actions. It also demonstrates that removal by one defendant does not cure defects in service on other defendants, and that courts will act sua sponte to address such defects through orders to show cause.