Robinson v. Trevino ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CASEY LYNN ROBINSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00112-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED FOR THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO 14 COMPLY KRISTIAN XAVIER TREVINO, et al. 15 TWO-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant in the Superior 18 Court of California, County of Kern. (Doc. 1). On January 15, 2020, Defendant removed this 19 action to this Court. Id. On May 25, 2023, the parties filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. 83). On 20 June 22, 2023, the Court issued an order directing the parties to file dispositional documents no 21 later than July 7, 2023. (Doc. 84). As of the date of this Order, the parties have failed to file 22 dispositional documents or any alternative filing seeking an extension of the time set by the Court 23 to file dispositional documents, and the time to do so has passed. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 25 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 26 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 27 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within two days of entry of this order, the 2 | parties shall show cause in writing why sanctions, including monetary sanctions or dismissal, 3 | should not be imposed for their failure to timely file dispositional documents pursuant to Local 4 | Rule 160(b). 5 Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 13, 2023 | hr 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28