Soto, et al. v. Castlerock Farming, et al.

Filing 175

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not be Dismissed and ORDER Vacating August 27, 2014 Hearing Date, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/22/2014. (IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing by 10:00 AM on Friday, August 29, 2014 why sanctions should not be imposed. The pretrial conference scheduled for Wednesday, August 27, 2014 is VACATED.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SILVESTRE SOTO,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-0701 AWI JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

v.
CASTLEROCK FARMING AND
TRANSPORT INC., and DOES 1 to 20
inclusive,
Defendant

ORDER VACATING AUGUST 27, 2014
HEARING DATE

The pretrial conference in this case is set for Wednesday, August 27, 2014 and the trial is
set for October 28, 2014. Doc. 133. Local Rules of the Eastern District of California require:
(a) Time for Filing. As required by the pretrial (scheduling) order in the action,
counsel shall file either separate pretrial statements or a joint pretrial statement as
follows:
(1) Separate Statements. Not less than fourteen (14) days before the date set by the
Court for the holding of the final pretrial conference, counsel for the plaintiff shall
serve and file a pretrial statement in the form prescribed herein. Not less than seven
(7) days before the date set for the holding of the pretrial conference, counsel for all
other parties shall serve on all parties and file pretrial statements that may adopt by
reference any or all of the matters set forth in the plaintiff's pretrial statement.

23

(2) Joint Statements. Not less than seven (7) days before the date set by the Court
for the holding of the final pretrial conference, or such other time as the Court may
order, counsel for all parties shall file a joint pretrial statement in the form
prescribed herein or in such other form as the Court may prescribe.

24

Local Rule 281. Defendant filed a timely statement. Doc. 174. Plaintiff has not filed the required

25

pretrial statement. There has been no contact from Plaintiff regarding the scheduled pretrial

26

conference. Defendant notes that it has attempted to restart settlement talks, but has not received

27

any response from Plaintiff. Doc. 174, at 5:2-3. The court is unsure if Plaintiff wishes to continue

28

with this case.

22

1

At this juncture the court cannot proceed with this action because Plaintiff has failed to file

2

his pretrial statement or otherwise contact the court. The court has no choice but to consider

3

sanctions. A court may sanction or even dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s

4

failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

5

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, “the

6

Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

7

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

8

defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy

9

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir.

10

2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46

11

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to explain his failure to

12

comply with the local rules.

13

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing by 10:00 AM on Friday, August 29,

14

2014 why sanctions should not be imposed. The pretrial conference scheduled for Wednesday,

15

August 27, 2014 is VACATED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2