J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Martinez

Filing 33

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE to Defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez Why Sanctions Should not be Imposed including Entry of Default. ORDER SETTING Show Cause Hearing: for Monday, March 7, 2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge B arbara A. McAuliffe. (1) Defendant shall respond to this Order to Show Cause, in writing, no later than February 29, 2016; (2) Defendants written statement SHALL identify his current physical address, telephone number, and ema il address, if any. If his contact information has changed, he shall explain why he failed to keep the Court apprised of his contact information. He shall also advise the Court whether he intends to continue to defend this action; (3) The Court also SETS a Show Cause Hearing for March 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Defendant may appear by telephone by contacting Plaintiff at telephone number (626)799-979 prior t o the conference; (4) Plaintiff SHALL appear at the show cause hearing by telephone; (5) The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this Order to Show Cause on Defendant by mail. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/17/2016. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC ,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

10

MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ a/k/a
MARTIN MARTINEZ CARRILLO,

11

Defendant.

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01578-KJM-BAM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENDANT
MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
INCLUDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT
ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE HEARING
HEARING: Monday, March 7, 2016 at
2:00PM in Dept. 8

13
14

TO DEFENDANT MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ:

15

Defendant Martin Carrillo Martinez aka Martin Martinez Carrillo is proceeding pro se in this

16

action. Defendant failed to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference on February 7, 2016.

17

Previously, on January 14, 2016, plaintiff and defendant were advised electronically and by mail that a

18

scheduling conference would be held on February 17, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 28). In the interim, on

19

February 11, 2016, the Court issued a minute order warning the parties that failure to appear at the

20

scheduling conference, either personally or by telephone, may result in sanctions. On February 17,

21

2016, counsel for Plaintiff appeared at the scheduling conference, however, Defendant failed to

22

appear. Without Defendant’s appearance, the scheduling conference could not proceed.

23

At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel also advised the Court that Defendant failed to participate in

24

the joint scheduling report. Plaintiff’s counsel further explained that he has made several unsuccessful

25

attempts to reach Defendant by mail and by phone. On a most recent attempt, a person answering

26
27
28
1

1

defendant’s listed telephone number responded that Plaintiff has the wrong number.1 Defendant is

2

under a duty to keep the Court and counsel apprised of his current contact information. Local Rule

3

183. The Court needs to have information regarding Defendant’s contact information as it will affect

4

the management of this litigation.

5

Accordingly, Defendant SHALL show cause why he has failed to participate in these

6

proceedings and obey the orders of this Court and why sanctions, up to an including terminating

7

sanctions, should not be imposed for his failure to update his contact information and appear at the

8

Court’s scheduling conference. Defendant is further put on notice that failure to timely respond, as

9

explained in this order, may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DISCUSSION

10
11

Eastern District of California Local Rule 182(f) provides that attorneys and any party

12

appearing pro se are “under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of

13

address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party.” Thus, Defendant is under a

14

continuing duty to keep the Clerk and others informed of any change to his address or telephone

15

number.

16

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or

17

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

18

within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power to control their

19

dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . .

20

. dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may

21

dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a

22

court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

23

Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

24

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

25

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule

26

requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d

27
1

28

On July 10, 2015, Defendant submitted a letter to the Court with his current address and telephone number. (Doc.

21).

2

1

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779

2

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

3

local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a

4

court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the

5

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)

6

the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

7

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson,

8

779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the following:

9

1.

10

Defendant MARTIN CARRILLO MARTINEZ is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW

11

CAUSE why this Court should not impose sanctions, including default or dismissal, for his failure to

12

appear at the telephonic scheduling conference and otherwise comply with Local Rule 182(f).

13

Defendant shall respond to this Order to Show Cause, in writing, no later than February 29, 2016;
2.

14

Defendant’s written statement SHALL identify his current physical address, telephone

15

number, and email address, if any. If his contact information has changed, he shall explain why he

16

failed to keep the Court apprised of his contact information. He shall also advise the Court whether he

17

intends to continue to defend this action;
3.

18

The Court also SETS a Show Cause Hearing for March 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM in

19

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Defendant may

20

appear by telephone by contacting Plaintiff at telephone number (626)799-979 prior to the conference;

21

4.

Plaintiff SHALL appear at the show cause hearing by telephone;

22

5.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this Order to Show Cause on Defendant by

23
24

mail.
The failure to respond to this order or failure to appear at the March 7 hearing will

25

result in the imposition of sanctions.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 17, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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