Martinez v. City of Clovis, et al.

Filing 254

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT KYLE PENNINGTON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER OR ALTERNATIVELY TO SUMBIT A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATMENT. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/17/2024. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

Case No. 1:15-cv-00683-DAD-SKO

DESIREE MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT
KYLE PENNINGTON TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE
FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER OR
ALTERNATIVELY TO SUMBIT A
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE STATMENT

v.

12
13

KYLE PENNINGTON, KIM
PENNINGTON,

14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17
18

Procedural History

19

A Settlement Conference in this case was set for August 27, 2024. The Court and issued an

20 “Order re Settlement Conference” (SC Order) on April 23, 2024. (Docs. 242.) The parties were
21 required to submit a confidential settlement statement to the Court no later than fourteen days before
22 the conference date. (Doc. 242 at 2.) The Court also set a pre-settlement telephonic conference on
23 August 20, 2024. (Doc. 242 at 4.)
24

Defendant Kyle Pennington neither submitted a confidential settlement statement, nor

25 appeared at the August 20, 2024, pre-settlement telephonic conference. (Doc. 247.) The Court set
26 a further pre-settlement conference for August 22, 2024, to discuss the propriety of proceeding with
27 the August 27, 2024, settlement conference. (Id.)
28

On August 22, 2024, the Court held a follow-up telephone conference at which all parties

1 appeared. (Doc. 248.) Defendant Kyle Pennington was admonished that he must comply with the
2 Court’s Settlement Conference Order, including timely submission of a confidential settlement
3 statement and appearance at the pre-settlement telephonic conference. The settlement conference
4 was continued to October 30, 2024, and a pre-settlement conference was set for October 23, 2024.
5 The Court also issued an Amended Settlement Conference Order (Amended Settlement Conference
6 Order) on August 22, 2024. (Doc. 249.)
7
8
9

The Court has timely received the confidential statements from Plaintiff and Defendant Kim
Pennington; however, no statement has been received from Defendant Kyle Pennington in
accordance with the Amended Settlement Conference Order.1

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Order to Show Cause
This Court spends considerable time preparing for settlement conference so as to make it
meaningful to the parties and results in a greater likelihood of settlement success. Settlement is
extremely important in this district where the judges have one of the highest caseloads per judge in
the United States. The settlement conference statement assists the Court in adequately preparing
for these matters. They are not pro forma.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions
. . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket
and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of
the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
Pursuant to the Order, the parties’ confidential settlement statements were due on October
16, 2024. As noted above, Defendant Kyle Pennington has again failed to submit a confidential
statement. Defendant Kyle Pennington is therefore required to show cause why sanctions should
not issue for the failure to submit a confidential settlement conference statement in compliance with
the Court’s order. Alternatively, Defendant Kyle Pennington may submit a confidential settlement
conference statement by October 21, 2024.

27
1
28 As noted above, this is not the first time Defendant Kyle Pennington have failed to comply with the Court’s orders in

this case.

2

1

Order

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

By no later than October 21, 2024, Defendant Kyle Pennington shall either:
a.

file a written response to this order showing cause why sanctions should not
issue for the failure to comply with the Court’s order; or

5
6

b.

7

submit a confidential settlement conference statement.

2. The Clerk of the Court SHALL serve a copy of this Order to defendant Kyle

8

Pennington at the P.O. Box listed on the docket.

9

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on

10 any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause such non-compliance.
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated:
14

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

October 17, 2024

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3