(PS) Gastelum v. Arbor Lodging Partners, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, No. 2:22–cv–1689–TLN-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 ARBOR LODGING PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a PICCADILLY INN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 28, 2023, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer within thirty days and 18 file a joint status report within fourteen days of meeting and conferring. (ECF No. 15.) On 19 August 14, 2023, defendant submitted a non-joint status reported stating that defendant attempted 20 to contact plaintiff to prepare a joint status report, but plaintiff did not respond. (ECF No. 16 at 21 1.) 22 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case 23 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 24 case, or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 25 court’s local rules. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 26 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil 28 1 || procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) 2 || (‘Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik v. 3 || Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 || 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court’). 5 || This court’s Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that □□□□□□□□□□ of 6 || counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds 7 || for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 8 | inherent power of the Court.” 9 “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” 10 | King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds). Eastern District 11 | Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 12 Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 13 Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 14 persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 15 Rules. 16 | E.D. Cal. L-R. 183(a). 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Within thirty days of this order, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions 20 should not be imposed for his failure to meet and confer with defendant and join in the 21 status report pursuant to the court’s June 28, 2023 order, Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 26(f), and Local Rule 240. 23 2. Plaintiffs failure to file the required response shall constitute an additional ground for, 24 and plaintiff's consent to, the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a potential 25 recommendation that plaintiff's case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice 26 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a). 27 || Dated: September 26, 2023 gast.1689 —-f’ \ 28 Al i; Noreen KENDALLI. WEA TINTITED STATES MA CTETE ATE TINncEe