Kern County Hospital Authority v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, et al.

Filing 39

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 5/28/2019. Show Cause Response due by 6/11/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KERN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-0473 - DAD - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

17
18

Previously, the parties filed a “Joint Notice of Settlement,” indicating they agreed to settle the

19

action and anticipated filing a stipulation for dismissal within sixty days. (Doc. 37 at 1) Accordingly,

20

the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than May 24, 2019.

21

(Doc. 38) The parties were informed that “failure to comply with this order may result in the Court

22

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

23

date, the parties have failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

25

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

27

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

3

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order);

4

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

5

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

6

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Within 14 days, the parties are ORDERED to show cause why the action should not be

8

dismissed and/or monetary sanctions imposed for their failure comply with the Court’s order or,

9

within the same time period, to file a stipulated request for dismissal.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 28, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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