Gonzalez v. Xtreme Manufacturing, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01704 JLT SKO all others similarly situated, ) 12 ) ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff, ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE v. ) COURT’S ORDER 14 ) XTREME MANUFACTURING, LLC, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 On October 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the class 18 settlement and preliminarily approved the proposed Notice Packet. (Doc. 31.) However, there were 19 also revisions required, including the date of the hearing for final approval; deadlines for requesting 20 exclusion, objections to the Settlement, and disputes of the employment information for the class 21 member; and contact information for Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. (See id. at 29.) 22 Therefore, the Court ordered: “the parties SHALL file a finalized Notice with the required revisions 23 for the Court’s approval within seven days of the date of service of this Order.” (Id. at 30-31, ¶ 12 24 [emphasis in original].) Pursuant to this order, the finalized Notice was to be filed no later than 25 November 1, 2022. To date, the finalized notice has not been submitted to the Court. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, 2 || including terminating sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 3 || (9th Cir. 1986). A court may sanctions based on a party’s failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., 4 || Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (sanctions for failure to comply with an 5 || order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (sanctions for failure to 6 comply with a court order). 7 Accordingly, the parties ace ORDERED to show cause no later than November 8, 2022, w1 8 || sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order or, in the 9 || alternative, file the revised Class Notice for the Court’s approval. 10 11 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ November 3, 2022 Charis [Tourn 13 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28