Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina et al
Filing
52
ORDER Requiring Cross-Defendant Lupe C. Flores to SHOW CAUSE in Writing why Sanctions Should not be Imposed for Failure to Appear at Status conference signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 10/23/2024. 14-day deadline. (Boren, Cori)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
14
v.
CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA,
15
16
ORDER REQUIRING CROSSDEFENDANT LUPE C. FLORES TO
SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR
AT STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,
(Doc. 49)
v.
14-DAY DEADLINE
17
LUPE C. FLORES,
18
19
Defendant/Cross-Defendant.
20
21
On September 5, 2024, the Court issued an order (Doc. 49) denying without prejudice both
22 Cross-Plaintiff Molina’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 42) and Cross-Defendant Lupe
23 Flores’ motion for appointment of guardian ad litem and appointment of counsel (Doc. 48). In
24 its order, the Court set and ordered the parties to appear for a mandatory status conference on
25 October 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m, and provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom
26 deputy for the parties to request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. See (Doc.
27 49). The Court served the order by mail on Lupe Flores on the day of its issuance. Id.
28
1
1
After the issuance of the order, on October 10, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a fifth1 motion to
2 appoint guardian ad litem, also requesting appointment of counsel. (Doc. 50). In her motion,
3 Lupe Flores did not identify any conflict that would result in her inability to attend the Court’s
4 mandatory status conference set for October 23, 2024.
5
The Court convened for the mandatory status conference on the scheduled date of October
6 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m, via Zoom videoconference. The videoconference link had been supplied
7 to all parties in advance. Cross-Plaintiff Molina and her counsel, Eric Leroy, made an appearance.
8 However, Lupe Flores did not appear and neither did any representative or power of attorney on
9 her behalf. As such, the Court was unable to discuss the current posture of the case, the positions
10 of the parties, and any plans for further litigation of the matter.
11
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
12 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
13 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control
14 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate. Bautista
15 v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
16
In light of Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores’ failure to appear at the mandatory status
17 conference on October 23, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores shall
18 show cause in writing within 14 days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed
19 for her failure to obey this Court’s orders. At a minimum, Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores’ written
20 response shall address her failure to appear at the conference and set forth any grounds for this
21 Court to find her neglect should be excused.
22
Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of
23 sanctions.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated:
October 23, 2024
___________________
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
1
The prior motions are Docs. 31, 39, 45, and 48.
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?