Brooke v. Sai Ashish Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00967-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 SAI ASHISH, INC., (ECF No. 9) 15 Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Sai 18 Ashish, Inc., and set the motion for hearing before the District Judge (ECF No. 7.) On August 19 6, 2021, the Court reset the hearing for September 15, 2021, before the undersigned in 20 Courtroom 9. (ECF No. 8.) On August 9, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant 21 with the notice of changed hearing date, and to file proof of such service with the Court within 22 three (3) days. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed such proof of service nor otherwise 23 responded to the Court’s order. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 26 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 27 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 1 | 2000). 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within 3 | three (3) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to 4 | comply with this Court’s August 9, 2021 order. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _August 18, 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