Rangel v. American Medical Response West et al

Filing 102

ORDER requiring the parties to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.Response due by April 3, 2014 by 10:00 a.m. signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/26/14. (Nazaroff, H)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8
9
10

1:09-cv-01467-AWI-BAM
DEANNA RANGEL,
ORDER REQUIRING THE
PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
WEST, JOSE MARTINEZ, and
TRACY J. FISHER

14

15
16

Defendants.
__________________________________/

17
18

I. BACKGROUND
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the

19 proceedings.
20

On March 7, 2014, this Court issued an order vacating the May 6, 2014 trial date

21 previously scheduled in this case due to a calendar conflict resulting from this case being
22 scheduled for trial at the same time as a criminal case and other civil cases. This Court informed
23 the parties of the enormous caseload that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California
24 possesses. The Court then provided the standard consent form -- permitting the parties to either
25 consent or decline to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge -- and
26 ordered the parties to notify the Court within ten (10) days of their decision by filling the
27 enclosed forms and returning them to the Court. The parties failed to do so by March 17, 2014.
28
1

1

On March 21, 2014, the Court informally contacted Plaintiff’s counsel in an effort to

2 ensure compliance with the Court’s March 7, 2014 order. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he
3 would file the requisite form to indicate his intention not to consent to the jurisdiction of a
4 United States Magistrate Judge. As of this date no response has be received from either party.
5

II. DISCUSSION

6

The parties have failed to comply with this Court’s order dated March 7, 2013.

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), in relevant part, provides, AIf a plaintiff fails to …

8 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
9 claim against it.@ Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). Although the language of the Rule indicates that Rule
10 41(b) is applicable upon motion by the defendant, Acourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua
11 sponte, at least in some circumstances.@ Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States
12 Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Olsen v. Maples, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204
13 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)).
14

Local Rule 110, corresponding with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, provides that Aa failure of counsel

15 or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for
16 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.@
17 ADistrict courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power
18 they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.=@ Bautista v. Los
19 Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260
20 (9th Cir. 1992); Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.
21 1986).
22

A court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party=s failure to obey a court

23 order. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for
24 noncompliance with Local Rule); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (dismissal for failure to comply
25 with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack
26 of prosecution and failure to comply with Local Rules). In determining whether to dismiss an
27 action for failure to obey a court order the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the
28
2

1 public=s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court=s need to manage its docket;
2 (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
3 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
4 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Bautista, 216 F.3d at 841; In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451; Ferdik, 963
5 F.2d at 1260-61; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.
6

In the case at hand, the public's interest is in resolving this litigation. See Yourish v.

7 California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999) (“The public's interest in expeditious

8 resolution of litigation always favors dismissal”). Similarly, the Court's has an interest in
9 managing its docket, given that the Eastern District of California is one of the busiest federal
10 jurisdictions in the United States and its District Judges carry some of the heaviest caseloads in
11 the nation. Because the parties have failed to comply with the Court’s order, the Court's interest
12 in managing its docket weighs in favor of sanctions. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (recognizing
13 that district courts have inherent interest in managing their dockets without being subject to
14 noncompliant litigants).

15

A warning by a district court satisfies the requirement that the Court consider less drastic

16 measures. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court
17 has not yet warned the parties of the consequences of their failure to comply with its orders. This
18 Court now warns the parties that continued failure to comply with its orders will result in
19 monetary sanctions or dismissal.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ///
28
3

1

III. ORDER

2

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing by April 2,

3 2014 by 10:00 a.m., why this Court should not impose sanctions due to the parties’ failure to
4 comply with this Court’s order dated March 7, 2014.
5

In any event, the parties are ORDERED to notify the Court of their decision as to

6 whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge by filling and
7 submitting the consent form by April 2, 2014.

8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: March 26, 2014
11

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4