Mead v. Multi-Chem Group, LLC, Haliburton

Filing 12

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Her Failure to Prosecute this Action, Her Failure to Appear at the Scheduling Conference and Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/12/2013. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAYLA MEAD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
MULTI-CHEM GROUP, LLC, et al.
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01186 - LJO - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
HER FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION,
HER FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Kayla Mead (“Plaintiff”) initiated an action against Multi-Chem Group, LLC and Haliburton

18

Energy Services, Inc., in Kern County Superior Court. However, since the removal of the action to

19

this Court, Plaintiff has not taken any action to prosecute the action, failed to file a scheduling

20

conference report and failed to appear at the Court’s scheduling conference on November 12, 2013.

21

On July 30, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference,”

22

which “ordered that [the parties] appear for a formal Scheduling Conference…” (Doc. 3 at 1). The

23

Court explained: “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party not

24

represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2) (emphasis in original). Further,

25

the parties were ordered to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report and file this report one week prior to the

26

Scheduling Conference. (Id.)

27
28

On October 5, 2013, Defendants filed a Scheduling Report, informing the Court that they met
and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel “and provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a proposed Joint Rule
1

1

26(f) Report.” (Doc. 8 at 1). However, “just prior to the Parties’ deadline to submit the report

2

Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendants’ counsel that she was ill and needed additional time to review

3

the proposed Joint Rule 26(f) Report.” (Id. at 1-2). Notably, however, Plaintiff’s counsel did not notify

4

the Court of her illness or seek leave of the Court for an extension of time or continuance of the

5

Scheduling Conference.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

18

this Order why sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for her

19

failure to appear at the Court’s Scheduling Conference and failure to comply with the Court’s order.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 12, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2