Hopson v. Valhalla Property Holding LLC, et al.

Filing 13

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not issue and this action be dismissed for the failure to comply with the July 18, 2017 order requiring Plaintiff to file dispositive documents. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/4/2017. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01798-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff,
v.
VALHALLA PROPERTY HOLDING
LLC, et al.,

15

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
COURT ORDER
FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff filed this action on November 28, 2016. (ECF No. 1). On July 17, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement requesting seventy five days to file dispositive documents.
(ECF No. 11.) On July 18, 2017, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to file dispositive
documents within seventy five days. The time for dispositive documents to be filed has passed
and Plaintiff has not filed dispositive documents or otherwise responded to the July 18, 2017
order. The Court also notes that in two recent cases, Plaintiff’s counsel was advised that the
failure to comply with this Court’s orders would result in the issuance of monetary sanctions. See
Hopson v. American Tire Depot, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00880-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017);
Hopson v. Ron Simi, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00879-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017).
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

28
1

1

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

2

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,

3

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

4

2000).

5

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within five

6

(5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not issue and this action

7

be dismissed for the failure to comply with the July 18, 2017 order requiring Plaintiff to file

8

dispositive documents. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in

9

the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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