Zhongjian v. enCore Energy Corp. — Entry #59: ORDER re: 55 Motion to dismiss Status Report due by 5/15/2026 (Signed by Judge Nicholas J Ganjei) Parties notified
Case: Zhongjian v. enCore Energy Corp. txsd · 4:25-cv-01234
filed March 14, 2025
What this document is
Docket entry #59 · filed April 22, 2026
ORDER re: 55 Motion to dismiss Status Report due by 5/15/2026 (Signed by Judge Nicholas J Ganjei) Parties notified. (acw4) (Entered: 04/22/2026)
Who is involved
- Connor Voss
- Douglas Lyon
- enCore Energy Corp.
- Oystein Kjelsvik
- Paul Goranson
- Shona Wilson
- Sun Zhongjian
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Applied Digital: its former name “FLIGHT SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES INC” appears in a filing in this case.
…Co-Lead Counsel. $1.2 million. • Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., (D. Conn.). Rosen Lead Counsel. $1…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved October 20, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 2,712 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 4:25-cv-01234 Document 59 Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 22, 2026
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Sun Zhongjian, et al., §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil No. 4:25-cv-1234
§
enCore Energy Corp., et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
On March 10, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim. Doc. 55. Plaintiffs failed to respond. Pursuant to the Local
Rules of the Southern District of Texas, a plaintiffs’ failure to respond within 21 days
“will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” See Local Rules 7.3 and 7.4.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not, by their own terms, require a party
to file a response in opposition to a motion to dismiss.” Webb v. Morella, 457 F. App’x
448, 452 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court may not “grant[] the motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim solely because the [Plaintiffs] failed to oppose the motion.” Id.
(citing John v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 707–10 (5th Cir. 1985)).
By May 15, 2026, the parties are directed to file a joint status update of no more
than three pages apprising the Court of the current status of this case. If Plaintiffs wish to
oppose Defendant’s motion, they may seek leave to file a late response under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 6.
Case 4:25-cv-01234 Document 59 Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on the 22nd of April, 2026.
__________________________
Nicholas J. Ganjei
United States District Judge