Strojnik v. Hi Fresno Hotel Holdings, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PETER STROJNIK, SR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01195-NONE-BAM 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 9 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 10 HI FRESNO HOTEL HOLDINGS, LLC, ORDER 11 Defendant. (Doc. No. 14) 12 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 13 14 On February 4, 2020, the Court convened an initial scheduling conference. (Doc. No. 14.) 15 The parties informed the Court that they had reached a resolution of the action but required 16 additional time to draft and finalize a settlement agreement. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court set a 17 Telephonic Status Conference for March 9, 2020, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the 18 undersigned to address the status of settlement. (Id.) The Court further informed the parties that 19 if they filed appropriate papers to dismiss or conclude the action in its entirety before the 20 conference, then the conference would be vacated. (Id.) On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff Peter 21 Strojnik, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 15.) However, 22 no dispositive documents were filed. On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff failed to appear at the 23 Telephonic Status Conference. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff accordingly waived his right to appear 24 and participate in the Telephonic Status Conference and the conference proceeded without input 25 from Plaintiff. 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any 27 order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 28 within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its 1 docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 2 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff Peter Strojnik, Sr., is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in 4 writing within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order why sanctions should not 5 be imposed against him for his failure to obey a court order and failure to appear at the March 9, 6 2020 Telephonic Status Conference. Plaintiff may also comply with this order by filing 7 appropriate dispositive documents to dismiss or conclude this action in its entirety. 8 Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including a 9 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28