Urbina v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NERI URBINA and LEONILA URBINA, on ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1471 NONE JLT behalf of themselves and all others similarly ) 12 ) ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE situated, ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 Plaintiffs, ) ) F CO OR U RFA T’I SL U OR RE D ET RO COMPLY WITH THE 14 v. ) ) 15 FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 ) 18 Previously, the parties informed the Court this action and two related actions have settled, and 19 requested the matter remain stayed. (Doc. 76.) The parties indicated they intended to seek approval of 20 the proposed class settlement in Reddick v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:19-cv-02193. (Id. 21 at 2.) Therefore, the Court approved the request for the action to remain stayed and ordered the parties 22 to “file a joint status report” within 90 days on May 13, 2021. (Doc. 77 at 2.) To date, the parties 23 have not filed a joint status report. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 28 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 1 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 4 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 6 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service 8 of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure comply with the Court’s order or to 9 file a joint status report. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: August 13, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28