The Baltimore Life Insurance Company v. Torres ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE Case No. 1:21-cv-01001-DAD-SAB COMPANY, 12 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW Plaintiff, CAUSE IN WRITING WHY MONETARY 13 SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR v. FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 DEADLINE: MAY 31, 2022 EMILY P. TORRES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Baltimore Life Insurance Company initiated this interpleader action on June 24, 19 2021, naming Defendants Emily P. Torres, individually and as Trustee for the Torres Revocable 20 Living Trust; Joe R. Torres, Jr.; and Jerry R. Torres. (ECF No. 1.) On November 22, 2021, the 21 Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and to serve by publication. (ECF No. 14.) 22 The Court ordered that: “Plaintiff shall publish this order in a newspaper of general circulation in 23 Kern County and an additional newspaper of national circulation once a week for six consecutive 24 weeks, with the first publication to be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of 25 this order.” (ECF No. 14 at 11 (emphasis in original).) A series of supplemental filings ensued 26 that the Court need not recount here, but incorporates by reference to the docket. At bottom, 27 Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the Court’s November 22, 2021 order (ECF No. 21) and on 28 May 4, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff relief from the national publication 1 | requirement of its November 22, 2021 order, vacating all matters and requiring Plaintiff to file 2 | dispositional documents within twenty-one days of entry of the Court’s order, that is, by May 25, 3 2022. (ECF No. 26.) The Court notes that the deadline to file dispositional documents has 4 | expired, but nothing has been filed. 5 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 6 | or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 7 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 8 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 9 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 10 | 2000). 11 The Court shall require Plaintiff to show cause why monetary sanctions should not issue 12 | for the failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with its May 4, 2022 order. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than May 31, 2022, why monetary 15 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents as 16 required by the May 2, 2022 order; and 17 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 20 | Dated: _May 26, 2022 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28