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

Filing 326

ORDER to Intervenor Plaintiff Dibuduo Land Management to SHOW CAUSE Why the Intervenor Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/29/2013. Show Cause Response due by 9/9/2013. (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

DIBUDUO LAND MANAGEMENT,

12
13
14
15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24

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

)
)
)
Intervenor Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BALLANTINE PRODUCE CO., INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
On March 19, 2013, the Court determined the Notice of Dismissal filed by Intervenor Plaintiff

25

DiBuduo Land Management (“DLM”) was improperly filed, and determined the Court’s prior order

26

closing the action was void. (Doc. 325). The Court observed DLM “may file and serve a motion for

27

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) if desired.” Id. at 4. Since that time, however, no action

28

has been taken by DLM on its claims against Ballantine Produce Co., Inc.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

in part, for failure to prosecute).

8
9
10

Accordingly, DiBuduo Land Management is ORDERED to show cause no later than
September 9, 2013 why the intervening action should not be dismissed for failure prosecute its claims
or, in the alternative, to file and serve a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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