(PS) Tobia v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEONARD TOBIA, No. 2:18-cv-871-MCE-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a California Corporation dba Dollar Tree 15 Store # 4760; KEVIN WAMPLER; and DOES 1-10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 17, 2019, the court issued an order which set a status (pretrial scheduling) 19 conference for January 8, 2020.1 ECF No. 4. The order directed plaintiff to complete service of 20 process on the defendant within 90 days and to serve a copy of the order concurrently with 21 service of the summons and complaint. Id. The order also directed the parties to file status 22 reports fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. Id. 23 Plaintiff did not timely file a status report, nor has he filed a proof of service 24 demonstrating that defendants were properly served.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(l) (requiring that 25 26 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, is before the undersigned 27 pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 28 2 To date, defendants have not appeared in this action. 1 || proof of service be made to the court). Accordingly, the status conference will be continued and 2 || plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effect 3 || service of process and/or failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. 4 | Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of 5 || the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 6 || statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (‘Any 7 | individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of 8 || Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th 9 | Cir. 1995) (‘Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.’’). 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. The status conference scheduled for January 8, 2020, is continued to February 26, 2020 12 | at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 8. 13 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before February 12, 2020, why this action 14 | should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process and/or failure to comply with the 15 || court orders. 16 3. By no later than February 12, 2020, the parties shall file status reports (or a joint status 17 || report) setting forth the matters referenced in the court’s July 17, 2019 order, including the status 18 | of service of process. 19 4. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 20 || action be dismissed for failure to effect services of process, comply with court orders, and/or for 21 | lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). 22 || DATED: January 2, 2020. 23 / EDMUND F. BRENNAN 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28