Amerson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF Ashley Ann Amerson to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Appear at Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 4/18/2024. Three-Day Deadline. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ASHLEY ANN AMERSON,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF
ASHLEY ANN AMERSON TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR
AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:24-cv-00100-JLT-CDB

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC.

15

Defendant.

(Docs. 2, 8)

16
THREE (3)-DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff Ashley Ann Amerson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint

21 against Defendant Amazon.com, Services, LLC. (“Defendant”) in Kern County Superior Court.
22 (Doc. 1). On January 22, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Id. That same day,
23 the Court issued civil new case documents and set an initial scheduling conference for April 18,
24 2024, at 9:00 AM. (Doc. 2). On April 11, 2024, the parties filed a joint scheduling report. (Doc.
25 7).
26

On April 18, 2024, the Court convened for the scheduling conference via Zoom. (Doc. 8).

27 Emily Tripodi appeared on behalf of Defendant. No counsel appeared for Plaintiff. Further,
28 counsel for Plaintiff was unresponsive to an email from the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk

1

1 inquiring about his absence from the conference. Counsel for Plaintiff has made no filing or
2 otherwise communicated with chambers as to the reasons for his failure to appear for the
3 scheduling conference.
4

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

5 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
6 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control
7 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including
8 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
9

The scheduling conference in this matter was calendared well in advance, the courtroom

10 deputy had provided Zoom videoconference connection information to counsel in advance, and
11 if counsel for Plaintiff was unable to appear, he had a duty to contact the Court and/or other
12 counsel prior to the conference to request whatever information necessary to facilitate his
13 appearance.
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within

15 three (3) days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for its failure to timely
16 appear at the scheduling conference.
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within three (3) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall

18 coordinate with Defendant and file a joint report identifying dates for a re-set scheduling
19 conference.
20

Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of

21 sanctions, including financial sanctions and dismissal of the action.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23

Dated:

April 18, 2024

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2