Rounds v. The Board of Trustees of the California State University ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLA ROUNDS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00170-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR MANDATORY 14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 15 SEVEN DAY DEADLINE Defendant. 16 17 18 Carla Rounds (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Board of Trustees of the California 19 State University in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Stanislaus on 20 December 16, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2020, Defendant removed the action to the 21 Eastern District of California. (Id.) On this same date, the order setting the mandatory 22 scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 2.) 23 Pursuant to the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, a joint scheduling 24 report was to be filed seven days prior and all parties were to attend the scheduling conference 25 on April 17, 2020. (Id. at 2.) The order also informed the parties that “[s]hould counsel or a 26 party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, or fail to 27 comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate wOoOw UV EEN PAI MU OP Ne er OY oe 1] | judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in original).) 2 The parties filed their joint scheduling report on April 10, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) The 3 | mandatory scheduling conference was held on April 17, 2020. Counsel Jennifer Perkell and Brandon Fields appeared telephonically for Defendant. Plaintiff did not appear for the 5 | conference. Finding that Plaintiff waived her appearance by the failure to appear, as provided in 6 | the scheduling order, an ex parte conference was conducted and a scheduling order shall issue. 7 | Plaintiff shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for Plaintiff's failure to 8 | appear at the mandatory scheduling conference. 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 10 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 11 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 12 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 13 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 14 | 2000). 15 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE in writing 16 | within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for her 17 | failure to comply with the January 31, 2020 order requiring her appearance at the mandatory 18 | scheduling conference. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in 19 | the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 22 | Dated: _ April 17, 2020_ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28