Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01488-JLT-BAK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND 14 COOKE CITY RACEWAY, INC., REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTICE OF 15 Defendant. DISMISSAL 16 (ECF No. 34) 17 SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff Chris Langer filed this action on October 5, 2021, alleging violation of the 19 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., (the “ADA”); California’s 20 Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq. (the “Unruh Act”); and California 21 Health and Safety Code §§ 4450, 19955(a), 19959. (ECF No. 1.) On July 27, 2022, the Court 22 issued findings and recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be 23 denied. (ECF No. 31.) On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 33.) On 24 August 12, 2022, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations, denied 25 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, and ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint 26 within twenty-one (21) days, or by September 2, 2022. (ECF No. 34.) 27 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 1 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 2 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 3 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 4 | 2000). 5 Plaintiff did not file a first amended complaint or file any other notice to comply with the 6 | Court’s August 12, 2022 order. Orders to show cause have been issued twice previously in this 7 | action. (ECF Nos. 5, 19.) The Court shall order Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should 8 | not be imposed, and Plaintiff shall file either a notice of dismissal or a first amended complaint 9 | on or before September 12, 2022. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before September 12, 2022: 11 1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure 12 to file a first amended complaint or otherwise comply with the Court’s August 12, 13 2022 order (ECF No. 34); 14 2. Plaintiff shall file either a notice of dismissal or a first amended complaint; 15 3. The filing of a notice of dismissal or complaint will not discharge the order to 16 show cause absent a separate written substantive response to the order to show 17 cause; and 18 4. The failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of monetary 19 sanctions, or other possible sanctions including dismissal of this action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 22 | Dated: _ September 6, 2022 _ Of 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28