Exclusive Wireless, Inc. v. The Wireless Stores, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01398-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 12 v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE AGAINST THEM 13 THE WIRELESS STORES, LLC, et al., (ECF Nos. 20, 21) 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On August 29, 2022, Exclusive Wireless, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of settlement 18 indicating that the parties had reached an agreement to resolve Plaintiff’s claims against The 19 Wireless Stores, LLC and Jason Suprenant (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to Local Rule 20 160(b), the docket entry for the notice of settlement filing provided a deadline for filing 21 dispositional documents by September 22, 2022. (See id.; L.R. 160(b) (“[T]he Court shall fix a 22 date upon which the documents disposing of the action or motion must be filed, which date shall 23 not be more than twenty-one (21) days from the date of said notification, absent good cause.”). 24 On September 7, 2022, the Court issued a minute order directing the parties “to file the 25 appropriate dismissal documents by 9/22/2022 pursuant to Local Rule 160(b).” (ECF No. 20). 26 The parties did not file appropriate dispositional documents by the September 22, 2022, 27 deadline. On October 6, 2022, the Court issued a minute order which ordered the parties to file 28 1 | the appropriate dispositional documents by no later than October 14, 2022. (ECF No. 21). To 2 | date, the parties have not complied with the Court’s order, and the deadline to do so has expired. 3 Local Rule 110 provides as follows: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 | sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 6 160(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A failure to file dispositional papers on the date 7 prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.” “District courts have inherent power to 8 control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of 9 an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 0 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 12 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 13 Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 15 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 16 1. Plaintiff and Defendants shall show cause why sanctions should not issue against them for 17 failure to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rule 160(b). (ECF Nos. 20, 21). 18 2. Plaintiff and Defendants have until no later than October 31, 2022, to file a written 19 response to this order to show cause. 20 3. Alternatively, by no later than October 31, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants may file an 1 appropriate dismissal document or a filing explaining why they are unable to do so. 2 4. The failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 | Dated: _ October 24, 2022 hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28