ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM Jr., District Judge.

"Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction." N.D. Cal. L-R 1-4.

In failing to appear at the initial case management conference held on October 13, 2015, Mr. Higginbotham was in clear violation of the Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of California. See Civil L.R. 16-10(a) (requiring lead trial counsel to attend the initial case management conference, absent excuse from the Court). Additionally, while Mr. Higginbotham claims he reached an agreement with Plaintiff's counsel to continue the deadline for filing an answer, he failed to reduce that purported stipulation to writing and file it in accordance with Local Rule 6-1(a)'s requirement that stipulations extending time "be promptly filed" with the Court. On May 9, 2016, in response to the order to show cause, Defense counsel admitted that he "failed to consider the Local Rule[s]" and that it had not occurred to him to appear at the case management conference or file the stipulation. Dkt. No. 41.

Relying on the inherent authority to manage the Court's docket and ensure the orderly disposition of this case, and for the reasons discussed at the April 28, 2016 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel is SANCTIONED for failing to comply with the local rules. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to pay $250 to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court on or before May 31, 2016. Plaintiff's counsel shall bear this sanction personally, and SHALL NOT bill Plaintiff for this $250 sanction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.