Chavez v. Arias et al

Filing 58

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 11/17/2020. Show Cause Response due within 7 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RORY CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 GILBERTO ARIAS, et al., 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0603 - 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 Previously, Plaintiff notified the Court that “a settlement has been reached… between Plaintiff 18 and Defendant Mayra R. Paniagua, only,” and dismissal documents were anticipated within 60 days. 19 (Doc. 46) Based upon the information provided, the Court ordered: “The stipulation to dismiss the 20 action as to Ms. Paniagua SHALL be filed no later than November 16, 2020.” (Doc. 47 at 1, 21 emphasis in original) To date, however, the parties have not filed the stipulation to dismiss the claims 22 against Ms. Paniagua. 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 24 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 25 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 26 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 27 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 28 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action with prejudice, based 1 1 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 2 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure 3 to prosecute and comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 4 1987) (imposing sanctions for to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 5 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, within seven days the parties SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions 7 should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within seven 8 days they may file the stipulation for dismissal of the action. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?