Lo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER to DEFENDANT 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 4/14/2017. 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

MOLLY LO,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL1,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0610 - JLT
ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

Molly Lo initiated this action by filing a complaint on April 30, 2016, seeking judicial review of

18

the decision to denying her application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On May 5, 2016, the

19

Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting forth the deadlines governing the action. (Doc. 5)

20

Plaintiff filed her opening brief in the matter on March 3, 2017. (Doc. 12) Pursuant to the

21

terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the opening brief, Defendant was to file a

22

responsive brief. (Doc. 5 at 2) Though the responsive brief was to be filed by April 3, 2017, it has not

23

been filed and Defendant has not requested an extension of time to do so.

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
1

28

Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the defendant.

1

1

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

2

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

3

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or

4

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

5

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

6

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposition of sanctions for failure to comply

7

with a court order).

8
9
10

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of
service of this Order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s Order
or, in the alternative, file a brief in response to the Plaintiff’s opening brief.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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