Maria Aurora Rascon v. Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER to Plaintiff and Her Counsel to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Appear at the Scheduling Conference and Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/28/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MARIA AURORA RASCON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, )
)
INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01578 -AWI - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSELTO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD
NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO
APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

On October 1, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference,”

18

which “ordered that [the parties] appear for a formal Scheduling Conference…” (Doc. 4 at 1.) The

19

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

20

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

21

However, Plaintiff Maria Rascon failed to comply with the Court’s order, and did not appear at the

22

Scheduling Conference held on May 28, 2014.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

1

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

2

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

3

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

4

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

5

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff and her counsel are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the

7

date of service of this Order why sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, should not be

8

imposed for their failure to appear at the Court’s Scheduling Conference and failure to comply with

9

the Court’s order.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 28, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2