Sandra Garybo et al v. Leonardo Bros et al

Filing 51

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/29/2018. 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

SANDRA GARYBO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
LEONARDO BROS., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01487 - DAD- JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On February 16, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report in which they reported, “Plaintiffs

18

Sandra Garybo and Agustin Vega and Defendant Golden West Labor have recently entered into a

19

settlement agreement.” (Doc. 49 at 2) Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated

20

request for dismissal no later than March 23, 2018. (Doc. 50 at 1) In addition, the parties were

21

informed that failure to comply with the Court’s order “may result in the Court imposing sanctions,

22

including the dismissal of the action.” (Id., emphasis omitted) To date, the parties have failed to

23

comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);

5

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

6

comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, within 14 days, the parties SHALL show cause in writing why the action should

8

not be dismissed or monetary sanctions imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order.

9

Alternatively, within 14 days, they may file the stipulated request for dismissal.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 29, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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