Integon National Insurance Company v. Dauster ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT COMPANY, ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) O SAR ND CE TR I OTO N SP L SA HI ON UT LIF DF N T OO T S BH EO IW M PC OA SU ES DE FOR 13 v. ) ) F OA RI DL EU RR E A NTO D C FAO IM LUPL RY E W TOIT PH R T OH SEE C C UO TU ER T’S 14 ) MICHAEL DAUSTER., et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff initiated this action for interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy it issued to 18 Michael Dauster, seeking a judicial declaration that Integon has no duty under the policy to defend or 19 indemnify related to a swimming pool accident. The Clerk of Court entered default against the 20 defendants remaining in this action, Michael Dauster and Megan Blackmon. (Docs. 14, 15) 21 Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “seek default judgment as to the two remaining defendants” 22 no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 25) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for default judgment 23 or taken any other action to prosecute its claims against the remaining defendants. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 28 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 1 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to 4 comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing 5 terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order). 6 Accordingly, within 14 days the plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions, 7 including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order 8 or to file the motion for default judgment as previously ordered. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: March 19, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28