Kingsburg Apple Packers, et al, vs. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc. et al,

Filing 300

ORDER to Intervenor Plaintiff Spectrum Produce Distributing to SHOW CAUSE Why the Intervenor Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/28/2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

17

KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS, INC. dba )
)
KINGSBURG ORCHARDS, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BALLANTINE PRODUCE CO., INC., a
)
California corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

18

SPECTRUM PRODUCE DISTRIBUTING,

12
13
14
15
16

19
20
21

Intervenor Plaintiff,
v.

22

BALLANTINE PRODUCE CO., INC., a
California corporation, et al.,

23

Defendants.

24

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00901 - AWI - JLT
ORDER TO INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF
SPECTRUM PRODUCE DISTRIBUTING TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THE INTERVENOR
COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

25

On September 29, 2009, Spectrum Produce Distributing (“Spectrum”) filed a motion to

26

intervene, seeking leave to file a claim out of time. (Doc. 108). The motion was granted by the Court

27

(Doc. 144), and Spectrum filed an intervenor complaint on February 11, 2010. (Doc. 148). Spectrum

28

identified the following defendants in its intervenor complaint: Ballantine Produce Co., Inc.; Vergil E.
1

1

Rasmussen; David S. Albertson; Eric Albertson; Jerry DiBuduo; and Babijuice Corporation of

2

California, Inc. Id. at 2-3. The defendants filed their answer to the intervenor complaint on February

3

22, 2010. (Doc. 155). Since the filing of the answer, Spectrum has not prosecuted its complaints

4

against the defendants.
The Ninth Circuit explained, “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and

5
6

in exercising that power, a court may dismissal an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los

7

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). Consequently, a court may dismiss an action based on a

8

party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local

9

rules. See, e.g., Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure

10

to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal,

11

in part, for failure to prosecute).
Accordingly, Spectrum is ORDERED to show cause within five court days of the date of

12
13

service of this Order why the intervening action should not be dismissed for failure prosecute its

14

claims or file a request for dismissal within this same time period.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated:

September 28, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2