Walker v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRITTNEY DENISE WALKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00156-AWI-BAM 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 12 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSELS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR 13 AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 14 TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 15 16 On December 29, 2020, Brittney Denis Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in Fresno 17 Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1.) On February 5, 2021, Defendants Aetna Resources, LLC, Aetna 18 Health and Life Insurance Company, Aetna, Inc., and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., removed the action to 19 this Court. (Id.) On February 8, 2021, an initial scheduling conference was set for April 27, 2021. 20 (Doc. No. 7.) Due to the status of the case, the initial scheduling conference was continued 21 several times until July 1, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 11, 21.) On July 1, 2021, the Court held a scheduling 22 conference, however, after the Court identified several named parties that had not been served the 23 Court set a status conference for August 31, 2021 to allow the parties time to discuss proper 24 parties and effectuate service. (Doc. No. 25.) On August 30, 2021, the status conference was 25 continued to November 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 33.) On October 20, 2021, the status conference was 26 again continued to November 16, 2021 at 9:00 am. (Doc. No. 34.) 27 On November 16, 2021, the Court initiated the Zoom video conference platform. 28 1 Plaintiff’s Counsel Nicol Hajjar did not appear. Defendants’ Counsel Daniel Fears or Andrew 2 Haeffele did not appear. The Court remained on the Zoom video conference until approximately 3 9:10 am. The Court also contacted the law firms of both Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel and 4 was sent to voicemail at both firms. 5 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any 6 order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 7 within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its 8 docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 9 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Counsel Nicol Hajjar and Defendant’s Counsel Daniel Fears and 11 Andrew Haeffele are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten (10) days of 12 the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed against them for their 13 failure to appear at the November 16, 2021 status conference. 14 Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including 15 dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 16, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28