Avalos v. Mascot LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01739-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MONETARY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 14 MASCOT LLC, ORDER 15 Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 9, 2020, George Avalos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Mascot LLC 18 (“Defendant”) alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ECF No. 1.) On 19 February 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was ordered to 20 file dispositional documents within thirty days of February 11, 2021. (ECF No. 8.) More than 21 thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed dispositional documents or otherwise 22 responded to the Court’s February 11, 2021 order. 23 Further, this is not the first time that this Court has been required to address Plaintiff’s 24 failure to comply with its orders. See Avalos v. East Africa Humanitarian Organization 25 Properties, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01605-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (order to show cause for 26 failure to comply with court order); Avalos v. Franco De Pizano, No. 1:20-cv-01571-DAD-SAB 27 (E.D. Cal. March 2, 2021) (order to show cause for failure to comply with court order). The March 9, 2021 order discharging the order to show cause in Avalos v. Franco De Pizano, stated, 1 | “Plaintiff is advised that when a deadline is unable to be met, the prudent course is to request an 2 | extension of the deadline and such failures to comply in the future may result in the issuance of 3 | monetary sanctions.” (No. 1:30-cv-01571-DAD-SAB, ECF No. 24 at 1-2.) 4 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 5 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 6 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 7 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 8 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 9 | 2000). 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within 11 | three (3) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not issue for the 12 | failure to comply with this Court’s February 11, 2021 order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _ March 16, 2021 ; 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28