Gonzalez et al v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/3/2011. Show Cause Response due by 10/18/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MARIA GONZALEZ and GONZALO GONZALEZ, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________ ) 17 Case No.: 1:11-cv-01284 LJO JLT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT’S ORDER Maria Gonzalez and Gonzalo Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in Kern County 18 Superior Court on July 13, 2011, alleging illegal truth and lending practices by Defendants, who 19 removed the matter to this Court on August 1, 2011. (Doc. 1). On September 8, 2011, the Court 20 ordered Plaintiffs “to serve their Complaint on defendants Lennar Corporation and Lennar Homes of 21 California and to file proofs of effective service of process of plaintiff’s Complaint” no latter than 22 September 23, 2011. (Doc. 12 at 2). To date, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s 23 Order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of 26 any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 28 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 1 1 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 4 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 5 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 6 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 8 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to prosecute and to 9 follow the Court’s Order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 3, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?