Trujillo v. Conrad ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-01627-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 ETHAN CONRAD, et al., THREE DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 ITALIAN CAFE GOURMET FOOD 17 SERVICE INC., 18 Cross Claimant 19 v. 20 ETHAN CONRAD, 21 Cross Defendant. 22 23 On March 9, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss Defendant Italian Café Gourmet 24 Food Service Inc. from this action. (ECF No. 61.) However, the stipulation did not address the 25 cross claim by Italian Café Gourmet Food Service’s Inc. against Ethan Conrad. On this same 26 date, an order issued requiring the parties to address the status of the cross claim within three 27 days. (ECF No. 62.) More than three days have passed and the parties have responded to the March 9, 2021 order. 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 2 pr with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 3 |.. within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket 4 pnd may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal 5 pf the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of the date of entry 7 | of this order, the parties SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why sanctions should not issue 8 | for the failure to comply with the March 9, 2021 order. 9 10 T IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 Pated: _March 16, 2021 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28