Roe v. Rodriguez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE ROE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01574-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS BY COURT 14 GREG RODRIGUEZ, et al., ORDERED DEADLINE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 50) 16 DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 14, 2023 17 18 On October 4, 2023, this matter was settled at a settlement conference at least as to some 19 named parties, and dispositional documents were to be filed withing thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 20 58.) 21 The deadline has now expired and the parties did not file dispositional documents, nor 22 requested an extension of time from the Court. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel 23 or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 24 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” The 25 Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose 26 sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 27 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court shall require the parties to show cause why 28 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with the 1 | deadline set by the Court at the settlement conference. (ECF No. 50.) 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than November 14, 2023, why 4 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents the 5 deadline to do so; and 6 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 4 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 9 | Dated: _November 7, 2023 _ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28