Santiago v. FCA US LLC ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN SANTIAGO, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01402-JLT-BAK (SKO) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 13 v. ) TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND ) FAILURE TO FILE STIPULATION TO DISMISS 14 FCA US, LLC, ) 15 Defendant. ) [14-DAY DEADLINE] ) 16 ) 17 On December 10, 2021, after the parties filed a notice of settlement, the Court ordered that the 18 stipulation to dismiss the action be filed by no later than March 7, 2022. (Doc. 6). When no dispositional 19 documents were filed by the deadline, the Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing why 20 sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the December 10, 2021 order. (Doc. 21 10). Defendant filed a response, explaining that the parties failed to file a joint stipulation of dismissal 22 due to an outstanding issue of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 11). Accordingly, the Court 23 discharged the order to show cause and ordered the parties to file the stipulation to dismiss the action 24 by no later than June 15, 2022. To date, no dispositional documents have been filed. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 27 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 1 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 2 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action with prejudice, based 3 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 4 rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 5 prosecute and comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 6 (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties SHALL show cause in writing 9 why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, 10 the parties may file the stipulation to dismiss the action within that timeframe. 11 The parties are advised that failure to comply with this order may result in the Court 12 imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: June 29, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01402

Filed Date: 6/30/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024