Liu v. Bank of America, N.A.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 SHIN-LIN LIU, Case No. 23-cv-05211-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS AND CLOSING CASE 10 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 44 Defendant. — 11 — — 12 — 13 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss filed by 14 Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, including the 15 request for a hearing filed by Plaintiff, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case. The 16 Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary and, for the reasons that follows, GRANTS 17 BANA’s motion. 18 On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff Shin-Lin V. Liu (“Liu”) filed a complaint in Alameda 19 County Superior Court alleging that BANA improperly deducted funds from a bank account 20 belonging to Redwood 101 Investment LLC (the “LLC”), after Liu reported fraud in connection 21 with the transaction. (See generally Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 (Complaint).) BANA 22 removed the case to this Court and moved to strike the complaint on the basis that the LLC is the 23 real party in interest. Liu is the LLC’s sole member. 24 On November 29, 2023, the Court denied BANA’s motion to strike, found the LLC was 25 the real party in interest, and granted Liu with the opportunity to obtain counsel and to have the 26 LLC ratify, join, or be substituted in to the case. (Dkt. No. 23.) Since then, the Court granted 27 Liu’s requests to continue deadlines to find counsel and to have the LLC ratify, join or be 1 (Dkt. Nos. 27, 29, 31.) 2 On August 22, 2024, Liu provided the Court with a ratification from the LLC. On October 3 17, 2024, the Court issued an Order accepting the ratification and advised that if Liu obtained 4 || counsel before any of the deadlines set in the Order, counsel should file a notice of appearance. 5 (Dkt. No. 36.) The Court also ordered BANA to answer “or otherwise respond” by November 22, 6 || 2024. BANA responded by filing its motion to dismiss.! 7 The Court has accepted the LLC’s ratification. Even though Liu is the LLC’s sole 8 || member, the LLC is a separate legal entity that must be represented by counsel. See Rowland v. 9 Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993); D-Beam Ltd. Partnership v. Roller Derby 10 Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137 , 11 139-40 (2nd Cir. 2007). Because Liu has not been able to obtain counsel for the LLC, the Court gq 12 must dismiss the case. 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. The Court has not reached the Y 14 || merits and dismisses the case without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. — 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 7) Q 16 || Dated: January 6, 2025 / } f \ faus 17 yt_-y JEFEREY/S WHIT 18 United St jteS Distryyt Judge 19 L/ — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — 7 1 Liu cross-moved for entry of default. The Court directed BANA to answer or otherwise respond. BANA’s motion to dismiss complies with that Order. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 4g || Liu’s motion for entry of default.