Brooke v. D.P.R.L. Investments, LLC

Filing 11

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 12/1/2016. Show Cause Response due by 12/9/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
D.P.R.I. INVESTMENTS, LLC,
dba Hotel Rosedale,

15
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01410 - LJO-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that the parties have settled the action. (Doc.

18

9) Thus, the Court ordered a request to dismiss the action to be filed no later than November 25, 2016.

19

(Doc. 10) The parties were informed that “failure to comply with this order may result in the Court

20

imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id. at 1, emphasis omitted.) To date, the

21

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

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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

2

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with

3

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

4

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the date of service of

6

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure comply with the Court’s order, or to file

7

a request for dismissal.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 1, 2016

/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