Bishop v. Ford Motor Company ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BARBARA BISHOP, Case No. 19-cv-08254-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER CONTINUING CASE 9 v. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 The parties filed a notice of settlement on November 23, 2020. ECF No. 43. The same 14 day, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file, by January 8, 2021, “either a stipulation 15 of dismissal or a one-page joint statement explaining why they were unable to file such a 16 stipulation.” ECF No. 44. It also set a case management conference for February 2, 2021, 17 indicating that the conference would be vacated if the parties filed a timely stipulation of 18 dismissal. Id. 19 As of the date of this order, the parties have not filed anything in response to the Court’s 20 November 23, 2020 order. Accordingly, the February 2, 2020 conference is continued to February 21 16, 2021. By February 9, 2021, the parties must file a joint statement explaining (1) why they 22 failed to comply with the Court’s November 2020 order and (2) why the imposition of monetary 23 sanctions is not appropriate, see Am. Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, No. 16-56390, ___ F.3d ___, 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 2021 WL 221877, at *9 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2021) (federal district courts have the inherent power to 2 || impose sanctions). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 1, 2021 5 JON S. TIGAR' 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 13 14 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28