Estate of Carmen Mendez v. City of Ceres ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF CARMEN MENDEZ, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00939-LJO-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED v. FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR 14 CITY OF CERES, et al., 15 RESPONSE DUE by August 23, 2019 Defendants. 16 17 TO COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE TIMOTHY NIERMEYER: 18 On July 31, 2019, the Court issued an order setting a Status Conference for August 14, 19 2019, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) to discuss the status of this action and related 20 case Estate of Carmen Mendez, et al. v. City of Ceres, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01677-LJO- 21 BAM, which is currently set for a settlement conference on October 8, 2019, and to allow the 22 parties to address any procedural issues regarding consolidation of the related cases. (Doc. No. 23 7.) Counsel for Plaintiffs Estate of Carmen Mendez and Stephanie Biedleman was 24 electronically served with a copy of the Court’s order. (Id.) On August 14, 2019, counsel for 25 Plaintiffs failed to appear at the Status Conference. (Doc. No. 8.) As a result, the Status 26 Conference could not proceed without the necessary input from Plaintiffs, resulting in delay of 27 this action. Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any 1 order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 2 within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to 3 control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including 4 dismissal of an action.” Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 5 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to 6 prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, 7 e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 8 comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 9 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 10 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 11 Accordingly, Lawrence Timothy Niermeyer, counsel for Plaintiffs Estate of Carmen 12 Mendez and Stephanie Biedleman, is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court 13 should not impose sanctions for his failure to obey a court order and failure to appear at the 14 August 14, 2019 Status Conference. Mr. Niermeyer shall file a written response to this Order 15 to Show Cause by no later than August 23, 2019. 16 Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including 17 monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of this action. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: August 14, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27