Brooke v. Sai Ashish Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00967-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER (ECF No. 9) Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE On August 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Sai Ashish, Inc., and set the motion for hearing before the District Judge (ECF No. 7.) On August 6, 2021, the Court reset the hearing for September 15, 2021, before the undersigned in Courtroom 9. (ECF No. 8.) On August 9, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant with the notice of changed hearing date, and to file proof of such service with the Court within three (3) days. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff has not filed such proof of service nor otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within three (3) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with this Court’s August 9, 2021 order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _August 18, 2021 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE