Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. S.C. Anderson, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY Case No. 1:22-cv-01441-JLT-CDB COMPANY OF AMERICA, 12 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW Plaintiff, CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A v. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 S.C. ANDERSON, INC. ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 15 MEET/CONFER TO RESET SCHEDULING Defendant. CONFERENCE 16 (Doc. 13) 17 18 THREE-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Plaintiff”) 21 filed a complaint against Defendant S.C. Anderson, Inc. (“Defendant”). On November 9, 2022, the 22 Court issued an order setting an initial scheduling conference for this action on February 2, 2023, at 23 10:00 a.m. (Doc. 5). The order noted “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon 24 each party not represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” Id. at 2. Defendant 25 filed two joint scheduling reports, signed by both parties, on January 12, 2023. (Docs. 11-12). 26 On February 2, 2023, the Court convened the scheduling conference for this action. (Doc. 13). 27 Counsel Brian Cronin appeared on behalf of Defendant. Id. No appearance was made by Plaintiff’s 28 counsel. The undersigned and Court staff remained connected to the Zoom application with Mr. 1 || Cronin until approximately 10:15 a.m., but Plaintiffs counsel neither appeared nor responded to Mr 2 || Cronin’s or the Court’s emails and telephone calls to inquire about the Scheduling Conference. Jd. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 4 || with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions. . . 5 |} within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 6 || may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 7 || action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 The Court is unclear whether counsel for Plaintiff forgot about or mis-calendared the 9 || Scheduling Conference or otherwise misplaced the Zoom connection information that the Court 10 || previously provided to Plaintiff. In all events, the Scheduling Conference had been calendared well 11 || in advance, and if Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to appear, they had a duty to contact the Court 12 || and/or Defendant prior to the conference to request whatever information necessary to facilitate 13 || Plaintiff's appearance. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 || 1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than February 6, 2023, why sanctions should not be 16 imposed for Plaintiff's failure to appear at the Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff is advised that 17 failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in dismissal of this action; and 18 || 2. The parties shall meet and confer and file a stipulation, no later than February 10, 2023, 19 identifying at least three dates, no earlier than March 6, 2023, during which the parties may 20 appear for a reset Scheduling Conference. 21 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 2, 2023 | br 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28