Abraugh v. Walmart, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHAWN ABRAUGH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01387-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 12 STATUS REPORT AND CONTINUING THE v. MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 13 TO JANUARY 25, 2024 WALMART, INC., et al., 14 (ECF No. 3) Defendants. 15 DEADLINE: JANUARY 4, 2024 16 17 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 22, 2023 against Defendants Walmart, Inc. and 18 Gregory Hanes. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not filed any proof of service and neither Defendant 19 has appeared. The mandatory scheduling conference is set for January 4, 2024, and a joint 20 scheduling report was due December 28, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) No joint report has been filed in 21 this action. 22 Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint 23 is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 24 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend 26 the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. The order setting the scheduling conference in 27 this matter additionally provides that: “plaintiff shall diligently pursue service of the summons 28 and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom the plaintiff will not pursue claims . . 1 | [and] plaintiff shall promptly file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court 2 | has arecord of service.” (ECF No. 3 at 1.) “Failure to timely serve the summons and complaint 3 || may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of unserved defendants.” (Id. at 2.) 4 | The order additionally provides that “[a] Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and 5 || executed by all parties, shall be filed one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference.” (Id.) 6 || Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 7 | with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 8 | ... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its 9 || docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 10 | dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than January 4, 2024 addressing the 13 status of this action and whether Defendants Walmart, Inc. and/or Gregory Hanes 14 have been served or will be dismissed from this action; 15 2. The initial scheduling conference is CONTINUED to January 25, 2024 at 2:30 16 p.m., in Courtroom 9 and the parties shall file a joint scheduling report at least 17 seven (7) days prior to the scheduling conference; and 18 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of sanctions, up to and 19 including dismissal of this action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 22 | Dated: _December 29, 2023 _ ef 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28