Rangel v. City of Modesto ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN RANGEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00638-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 CITY OF MODESTO, et al., (ECF No.) 15 Defendants. FIVE DAY DEADLINE 16 17 A notice of settlement was filed in this action and the parties were ordered to file 18 dispositional documents within forty-five days of August 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) More 19 than forty-five days have passed and dispositional documents have not been filed as required by 20 the August 13, 2020 order. 21 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 22 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 23 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 24 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 25 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 26 2000). 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for WAS 9G I SPAR □□□ oO PIR Ae OY ee 1 | the failure to file dispositive documents in compliance with the August 13, 2020 order. The 2 | parties are forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of 3 | sanctions. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ October 1, 2020 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28