McEntee v. Ford Motor Company, 1:17-cv-01116-AWI-JLT. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180117727
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BEWHY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION AND TO OBEY A COURT ORDER JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint against Ford Motor Company. (Doc. 1) The Court issued the summonses on the same day. (Doc. 2) On September 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. (Doc. 6) Despite the fact that Defendant has not filed its answe
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BEWHY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION AND TO OBEY A COURT ORDER JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint against Ford Motor Company. (Doc. 1) The Court issued the summonses on the same day. (Doc. 2) On September 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. (Doc. 6) Despite the fact that Defendant has not filed its answer..
More
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BEWHY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION AND TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint against Ford Motor Company. (Doc. 1) The Court issued the summonses on the same day. (Doc. 2) On September 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. (Doc. 6) Despite the fact that Defendant has not filed its answer to the complaint, Plaintiffs have not filed a request for the entry of default. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not continued to prosecute this action before the Court.
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. See, e.g. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Plaintiffs SHALL show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, seek the entry of default; and
2. The Scheduling Conference set for January 17, 2018 is CONTINUED to February 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
