Vertical Tank, Inc. v. BakerCorp

Filing 61

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 12/4/2019. 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

VERTICAL TANK, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

BAKERCORP,

15
16
17

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0145 LJO JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

On September 4, 2019, the Court held a settlement conference, at which the parties were able to

18

resolve the matter. (See Doc. 556, 58) Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation to

19

dismiss the action no later than November 29, 2019. (Doc. 58 at 2) The Court advised the parties that

20

their failure to comply with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of

21

the action. (Id.) However, the parties 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 impose terminating sanctions, based on a party’s failure to prosecute it

28

or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
1

1

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) (terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a

3

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, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within 14 why terminating and/or

6

monetary sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order, or in the

7

alternative, to file a stipulated request for dismissal.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 4, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2