Arizona Cardinals Football Club, Inc. et al v. Bryant et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Plaintiffs shalll show cause in writing by 9/30/08 why their claims against Defendants Wendell Bryant and the National Football League Players Association should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's Orders and failure to prosecute. Show Cause Response due by 9/30/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 9/17/08. (REW, )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arizona Cardinals Football Club, Inc., an) Arizona corporation; and National) Football League Management Council, a) ) non-profit association, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Wendell Bryant, an unmarried man; and ) ) National Football League Players ) Association, a labor organization, ) ) Defendants. )

No. CV-08-01541-PHX-LOA ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises on the Court's review of the file. Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about August 20, 2008. (docket #1) On August 22, 2008, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment and Order, docket #5, ordering Plaintiffs to file on or before September 12, 2008 their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. As of today's date, Plaintiffs have failed to file their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the court is within the court's discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, in the exercise of that power, may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). A dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Rule 41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his or her claim is grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d at 524. The courts have read this rule to require prosecution with "reasonable diligence" if a plaintiff is to avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)). Because the period within which Plaintiffs were to file their written consents or elections has passed, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing on or before Tuesday, September 30, 2008 why their Complaint against Defendants Wendell Bryant and the National Football League Players Association should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiffs may discharge this OSC by complying with the Court's August 22, 2008 Order on or before Tuesday, September 30, 2008. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause in writing on or before Tuesday, September 30 why their claims against Defendants Wendell Bryant and the National Football League Players Association should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's Orders and failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. DATED this 17th day of September, 2008.

-2-