Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Louis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01537-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 14 RENZO EDWARD LOUIS, et al., TEN DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 18 1.) On January 9, 2020, a notice of settlement was filed and Plaintiff was ordered to file 19 dispositive documents on or before April 10 2020. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) The time for dispositional 20 documents to be filed has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to 21 the January 10, 2020 order. 22 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 23 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 24 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 25 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 26 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 27 2000). 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN 2 | WRITING within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order why dispositive documents have 3 | not yet been filed. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the 4 | imposition of sanctions. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF a Se 7 | Dated: _April 14, 2020_ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28