ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff Amy Burdick and Scripps Media Inc., erroneously sued as KERO TV-23 and the E.W. Scripps Company, notified the Court they have reached a conditional settlement agreement in this action. (Doc. 15) Pursuant to Local Rule 160, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than December 7, 2017. (Doc. 16) To date, the stipulation has not been filed, and the parties have not requested an extension of time.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court's Order or, in the alternative, to file the stipulated request for dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.