Slice Beer Co., Inc. v. Frasher ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SLICE BEER COMPANY, INC., No. 2:23–cv–832–KJN Plaintiff/ 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Counterclaim Defendant, ORDER RESETTING SCHEDULING 13 CONFERENCE v. 14 ZACHARY M. FRASHER, et al., 15 Defendants/ Counterclaimants. 16 v. 17 RUSSELL YEAGER, 18 Third Party Defendant. 19 20 21 On October 10, 2023, this case was before the undersigned for a pretrial scheduling 22 conference.1 Although plaintiffs participated in the drafting and filing of a joint status report for 23 the status conference, plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing. 24 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case 25 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 26 case, or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 27 1 This case proceeds before the undersigned on the consent of all parties under 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(c). 1 || court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a 2 || court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 3 || Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss 4 || an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiffs failure to 5 || prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 6 | 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the 7 || district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court”); Thompson 8 | v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that 9 || district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including 10 || dismissal or default). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local Rule 110 11 || provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of 12 || the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 13 || statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 14 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The scheduling conference (see ECF No. 20) is RESET for October 17, 2023, at 9:00 16 a.m. The parties shall appear by remote means, and will receive login information 17 from the courtroom deputy on how to appear; and 18 2. At this hearing, plaintiffs shall be prepared to show cause why sanctions should not be 19 imposed for their counsel’s failure to appear at the status (pre-trial scheduling) 20 conference. 21 | Dated: October 10, 2023 ” Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 slic.832 25 26 27 28