Bodunde v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER IMPOSING DAILY SANCTION OF $50 PER DAY FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 09/24/2024. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to the Court's order to show cause in writing ( ECF No. 38 ) by close of business on September 25, 2024. If Defendant fails to comply with this order, Defendant and Defendant's counsel shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court $50.00 per day, beginning on September 26, 2024, until Defendant files a compliant response to the Court's order. (Nguyen, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 OLABISI BODUNDE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:24-cv-00985-JLT-SAB ORDER IMPOSING DAILY SANCTION OF $50 PER DAY FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., (ECF No. 38) Defendant. SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 DEADLINE 15 16 On March 26, 2024, Olabisi Bodunde (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Walgreens 17 Boots Alliance, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the Northern District of Illinois. (ECF No. 1.) On May 18 30, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 18-20.) On 19 June 10, 2024, an order was filed granting Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to stay this matter 20 pending resolution of a motion to transfer the action to the United States Judicial Panel on 21 Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) and the motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. (ECF 22 No. 26.) On August 2, 2024, a joint status report was filed informing the Court that the MDL 23 had denied Plaintiff’s motion and requesting leave to file an updated status report suggesting 24 next steps. (ECF No. 27.) On August 21, 2024, this matter was transferred to the Eastern 25 District of California by motion of the parties. (ECF No. 30.) 26 On August 23, 2024, the Court provided that the parties may file a joint status report 27 suggesting next steps but noted that a responsive pleading is due. (ECF No. 35 at 2.) The Court 28 therefore ordered that Defendant file a responsive pleading on or before September 6, 2024. 1 1 Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise respond to the Court’s order by 2 September 6, 2024. Accordingly, on September 9, 2024, the Court issued an order to show cause 3 requiring a response in writing from Defendant no later than September 23, 2024 why default 4 should not be entered. (ECF No. 38.) To facilitate Defendant’s ability to comply with the order, 5 the Court sua sponte granted Defendant a fourteen day extension of time to file a responsive 6 pleading. On September 23, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 40.) Defendant 7 8 has not filed a response in writing to the Court’s September 9, 2024 order to show cause. 9 Defendant has now failed to comply with two Court orders. Local Rule 110 provides that 10 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 11 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of 12 the Court.” The Court shall again provide Defendant with an extension of time to comply with a 13 third Court order. If Defendant fails to comply with this order by close of business on September 14 25, 2024, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $50.00 per day, beginning 15 on September 26, 2024. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Defendant shall respond to the Court’s order to show cause in writing (ECF No. 38) by close of business on September 25, 2024; and 18 2. 19 If Defendant fails to comply with this order, Defendant and Defendant’s counsel 20 shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court $50.00 per 21 day, beginning on September 26, 2024, until Defendant files a compliant 22 response to the Court’s order. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: September 24, 2024 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?