Garcia v. FCA US LLC

Filing 88

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 4/16/2018. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1

f

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARLENE GARCIA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
FCA US LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0730 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On October 25, 2017, the Court held a settlement conference with the parties, at which time

18

the matter was settled. (Doc. 75) Plaintiff then filed a motion for fees and costs, which the Court

19

granted in part on March 7, 2018. (Doc. 86) On March 8, 2018, due to the settlement, the Court

20

ordered the parties to file a stipulation to dismiss the action no later than April 6 2018. (Doc. 87) To

21

date, the parties have failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

6

this Order why terminating or monetary sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply

7

with the Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file a stipulated request for dismissal.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2018

/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