(SS) Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REBECCA LOU RYAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00973-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING SHELLIE LOTT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MONETARY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, COURT ORDER 15 Defendant. RESPONSE DUE JUNE 9, 2021 16 17 On May 18, 2021, plaintiff’s counsel, Shellie Lott (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for 18 attorney fees in this action. (ECF No. 24.) The motion did not inform plaintiff that she could 19 object to the motion or provide a timeline to file an objection. Therefore, on May 24, 2021, an 20 order issued providing plaintiff with such notice. (ECF No. 25.) The order required Petitioner to 21 serve a copy upon plaintiff within five days and promptly file the proof of service. (Id.) 22 Petitioner has not filed proof of service or otherwise responded to the May 24, 2021 order. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 24 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 25 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 26 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 27 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 Accordingly, on or before June 9, 2021, Petitioner Shellie Lott is HEREBY ORDERED 2 |to SHOW CAUSE in writing why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply 3 | with the May 24, 2021 order. Petitioner is forewarned that failure to respond to this order to 4 | show cause will result in the issuance of sanctions. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _June 4, 2021 __ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28