Dunn v. Boston Scientific Corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNIFER L. DUNN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00576-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT 14 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, OF THE ACTION 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 69) 16 FIVE DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On September 20, 2019, a notice of settlement of this action in its entirety was filed. 19 (ECF No. 66.) On September 24, 2019, an order was filed requiring the parties to file 20 dispositional documents within sixty days. (ECF No. 67.) On November 22, 2019, the parites 21 requested an extension of time to file dispositive documents. (ECF No. 68.) On November 25, 22 2019, the request for an extension of time was granted and dispositive documents were to be filed 23 within sixty days. (ECF No. 69.) More than sixty days have passed and dispositional documents 24 have not been filed. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 26 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 27 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 28 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 1 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2 | 2000). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days of the date of entry of 4 | this order, the parties shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for 5 | their failure to comply with the Court’s order as the matter has settled. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF a Se g | Dated: _January 31, 2020_ OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28