Burdick v. Kero TV-23 et al

Filing 17

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

AMY J. BURDICK,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
KERO TV-23, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-0591-DAD - 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 November 16, 2017, Plaintiff Amy Burdick and Scripps Media Inc., erroneously sued as

18

KERO TV-23 and the E.W. Scripps Company, notified the Court they have reached a conditional

19

settlement agreement in this action. (Doc. 15) Pursuant to Local Rule 160, the Court ordered the

20

parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than December 7, 2017. (Doc. 16) To date, the

21

stipulation has not been filed, and the parties have not requested an extension of time.

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 the stipulated request for dismissal.

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