Filed: Mar. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On February 16, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report in which they reported, "Plaintiffs Sandra Garybo and Agustin Vega and Defendant Golden West Labor have recently entered into a settlement agreement." (Doc. 49 at 2) Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than March 23, 2018. (Doc. 5
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On February 16, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report in which they reported, "Plaintiffs Sandra Garybo and Agustin Vega and Defendant Golden West Labor have recently entered into a settlement agreement." (Doc. 49 at 2) Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than March 23, 2018. (Doc. 50..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On February 16, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report in which they reported, "Plaintiffs Sandra Garybo and Agustin Vega and Defendant Golden West Labor have recently entered into a settlement agreement." (Doc. 49 at 2) Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for dismissal no later than March 23, 2018. (Doc. 50 at 1) In addition, the parties were informed that failure to comply with the Court's order "may result in the Court imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action." (Id., emphasis omitted) To date, the parties have failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court's order.
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 it 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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, within 14 days, the parties SHALL show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed or monetary sanctions imposed for their failure to comply with the Court's order. Alternatively, within 14 days, they may file the stipulated request for dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
