Harris v. Halliburton Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER to the PARTIES 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 12/14/2017. 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

HARRISON Y. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
HALLIBURTON COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0281-LJO - JLT
ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On August 9, 2016, the Court ordered this action be stayed “to allow for the completion of

18

arbitration.” (Doc. 25 at 6) The parties were ordered to file “a joint status report” “every 120 days” in

19

the action, to keep the Court informed as to the status of the arbitration. (Id.) The parties last filed a

20

status report on August 4, 2017. (Doc. 28) Thus, the parties were to file another status report no later

21

than December 3, 2017. However, the parties have not filed any report, either jointly or separately.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1

1

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

2

order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for

3

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

4

(imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

6

service of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s

7

Order or, in the alternative, to file a joint status report.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 14, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2