Hopson v. Ron Simi, Inc. et al

Filing 7

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by the close of business on the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/20/2017. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA HOPSON, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:17-cv-00879-DAD-SAB ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS v. RON SIMI, INC., et al. Defendants. (ECF No. 5) 16 17 On July 4, 2017, Plaintiff Cynthia Hopson filed this action alleging violations the 18 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and state law. On July 5, 2017, the order setting the 19 mandatory scheduling conference issued. 20 The order set the mandatory scheduling conference for September 26, 2017, with the 21 joint statement due one full week prior. Further, the order required Plaintiff to diligently pursue 22 service of the summons and complaint and to promptly file proofs of service. Plaintiff has not 23 filed proofs or service, filed a joint statement, or otherwise responded to the July 5, 2017 order. 24 On September 19, 2017, the courtroom deputy reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the 25 failure to file the joint statement and has received no response. 26 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 27 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 28 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 1 1 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 2 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 3 2000). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE in writing 4 5 by the close of business on the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the 6 failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause 7 may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 20, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?