[GSA] Munoz et al v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation

Filing 126

ORDER to Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/7/2013. (Show Cause Response due in 14 days.)(Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
GUIMARRA VINEYARDS CORPORATION, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
RAPHAEL MUNOZ, et al.,

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00703- AWI-JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On June 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a proposed class notice within twenty-one

18

days for the Court’s approval. (Doc. 121 at 16). Plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal,

19

which was denied by the Ninth Circuit on September 11, 2013. (Doc. 123). Therefore, the Court

20

ordered Plaintiffs to “file a prosed class notice for the Court’s approval no later than October 4, 2013.

21

(Doc. 124 at 1) (emphasis in original). However, Plaintiffs failed to file the proposed class notice, and

22

without this, the case cannot progress.

23

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

24

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

25

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

26

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

27

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

1

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

2

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

3

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

4

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

5

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

7

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure comply with the

8

Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file the proposed class notice.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 7, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2