Filed: Aug. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSEUCTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 13, 2017. (Doc. 1) The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties on January 12, 2018, and issued an order setting forth the deadlines related to class certification. (Doc. 17) The Court ordered the parties to begin discovery re
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSEUCTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 13, 2017. (Doc. 1) The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties on January 12, 2018, and issued an order setting forth the deadlines related to class certification. (Doc. 17) The Court ordered the parties to begin discovery rel..
More
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSEUCTE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 13, 2017. (Doc. 1) The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties on January 12, 2018, and issued an order setting forth the deadlines related to class certification. (Doc. 17)
The Court ordered the parties to begin discovery related to the class certification motion and the merits of the case, to the extent the merits overlapped with class issues. (Doc. 17 at 2) In addition, the Court ordered: "The motion for class certification SHALL be filed no later than August 10, 2018." (Id. at 5, emphasis in original). To date, Plaintiffs have not filed their motion for class certification, or filed a request for modification of the Court's Scheduling 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 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) (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, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause no later than August 31, 2018 why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to follow the Court's Order and failure to prosecute the action or, in the alternative, file the motion for class certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
