Hopson v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA HOPSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00880-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 14 J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, et al., SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff a notice of settlement in this action and an order issued 18 requiring dispositional documents to be filed within sixty days. More than sixty days have passed 19 and Plaintiff has not filed dispositional document nor otherwise responded to the September 24, 20 2020 order. 21 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 22 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 23 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 24 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 25 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 26 2000). 27 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN 28 WRITING within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue 1 | for the failure to file dispositive documents in compliance with the September 24, 2020 order. 2 | The parties are forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of 3 | sanctions. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ November 25, 2020 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28