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

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

After the parties reported they had settled the action (Doc. 32), the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation to dismiss the case no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 33 at 1) The Court advised the parties "advised that [their] failure to comply with this order may result in the Court imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action." (Id., emphasis omitted) However, they have not complied.

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 terminating sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order).

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days why sanctions, including monetary sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court's order, or to file a stipulation to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.