Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

W.D. Washington

Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01931

StatusUnknown

This text of Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al. (Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 XU LI and BRIGHT LIFE INTERNATIONAL Case No. 2:23-cv-01931-TMC 8 INC.,, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF BRIGHT 9 LIFE INTERNATIONAL’S CLAIMS Plaintiffs, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 10 PROSECUTE v. 11 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 On August 4, 2025, Judge Pechman granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 15 Dkt. 29. Plaintiffs were informed that although plaintiff Xu Li, an individual, may represent 16 himself pro se, plaintiff Bright Life International Inc. (“Bright Life”), a corporation, may not. 17 Dkt. 31 at 2 (citing Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 18 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)). Judge Pechman issued an order on September 11, 2025, requiring 19 substitute counsel to appear on behalf of Bright Life within 30 days, or the “Court will dismiss 20 Bright Life’s claims for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. 21 The deadline has passed, and substitute counsel for Bright Life has not appeared. 22 Accordingly, the Court dismisses all of Bright Life’s claims without prejudice for failure to 23 prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute 24 1 or failure to comply with the federal rules or court orders); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 2 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to 3 Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The

4 district judge has an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”). 5 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 6 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 7 Dated this 17th day of October, 2025. 8 A 9 Tiffany M. Cartwright 10 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 XU LI and BRIGHT LIFE INTERNATIONAL Case No. 2:23-cv-01931-TMC 8 INC.,, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF BRIGHT 9 LIFE INTERNATIONAL’S CLAIMS Plaintiffs, WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 10 PROSECUTE v. 11 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 On August 4, 2025, Judge Pechman granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. 15 Dkt. 29. Plaintiffs were informed that although plaintiff Xu Li, an individual, may represent 16 himself pro se, plaintiff Bright Life International Inc. (“Bright Life”), a corporation, may not. 17 Dkt. 31 at 2 (citing Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 18 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)). Judge Pechman issued an order on September 11, 2025, requiring 19 substitute counsel to appear on behalf of Bright Life within 30 days, or the “Court will dismiss 20 Bright Life’s claims for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. 21 The deadline has passed, and substitute counsel for Bright Life has not appeared. 22 Accordingly, the Court dismisses all of Bright Life’s claims without prejudice for failure to 23 prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute 24 1 or failure to comply with the federal rules or court orders); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 2 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to 3 Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The

4 district judge has an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”). 5 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 6 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 7 Dated this 17th day of October, 2025. 8 A 9 Tiffany M. Cartwright 10 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xu Li and Bright Life International Inc. v. Kristi Noem, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xu-li-and-bright-life-international-inc-v-kristi-noem-et-al-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack