Lawrence v. Discover Financial Services, LLC et al.

Filing 27

ORDER to Counsel for Plaintiff and Equifax Information Services, LLC, to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/6/2014. 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
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. , )
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
SHERRIE LYNNE LAWRENCE,

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02076 LJO JLT
ORDER TO COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AND
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD
NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

17

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff notified the Court that she has settled her case against Equifax

18

Information Services, LLC. (Doc. 25). The next day, the Court ordered that no later than May 2, 2014,

19

the parties must file their stipulated request for dismissal of this defendant. (Doc. 26) That has not

20

occurred.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

4

Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff and Equifax Information Services, LLC are ORDERED to

5

show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for

6

their failure to comply with the Court’s order.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 6, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE