Hearn v. City of Bakersfield ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW ALAN HEARN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00668-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING COUNTY DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 13 v. NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. AT A STATUS CONFERENCE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 28) 16 THREE-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 On June 2, 2022, Defendants City of Bakersfield and individual City defendants removed this 20 action filed in Kern County Superior Court by Plaintiff Matthew Alan Hearn (“Plaintiff”) against 21 those defendants and defendants of the County of Kern. (Doc. 1). On February 6, 2023, the Court 22 noticed the scheduling of a status conference to occur at 9:00 a.m. on February 10, 2023, after which 23 the courtroom deputy transmitted to all counsel via email information regarding the Zoom connection 24 to be used for the status conference. 25 On February 10, 2023, the Court convened the status conference at which Plaintiff's Counsel 26 Phillip Gillet and City Defendants’ Counsel Heather Cohen appeared. No appearance was made by 27 noticed Counsel for the County Defendants – Marshall Scott Fontes and Gustavo Maya, Jr. (Doc. 28 28). The undersigned and Court staff remained connected to the Zoom application with the counsel 1 || present until approximately 9:25 a.m., but neither Mr. Fontes nor Mr. Maya appeared or responded t 2 || the courtroom deputy’s email to inquire about the status conference. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 4 || with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions □□ □ 5 |} within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 6 || may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 7 || action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The Court is unclear whether counsel for County Defendants forgot about or mis-calendared 9 || the status conference or otherwise misplaced the Zoom connection information that the Court 10 || previously provided to them. In all events, the status conference had been calendared well in 11 || advance, and if Counsel for County Defendants was unable to appear, they had a duty to contact the 12 || Court and/or other counsel prior to the conference to request whatever information necessary to 13 || facilitate their appearance. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, County Defendants shall show cause in writing, nc 15 || later than February 13, 2023, why sanctions should not be imposed for Defendants’ failure to appeat 16 || at the status conference. County Defendants are advised that failure to comply with this order to 17 || show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions. 18 |! TT IS SO ORDERED. 19 aarD Rr Dated: _ February 10, 2023 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28