Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc.

E.D. California

Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc.

DecidedMarch 17, 2020

Docket1:18-cv-01727

StatusUnknown

This text of Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc. (Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CARLOS GONZALEZ, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01727-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS ) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THE PARTIES’ 13 v. ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ) ORDER 14 CLEAN HARBORS, INC., et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 After the parties reported they had settled the action (Doc. 32), the Court ordered the parties to 18 file a stipulation to dismiss the case no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 33 at 1) The Court advised 19 the parties “advised that [their] failure to comply with this order may result in the Court imposing 20 sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id., emphasis omitted) However, they have not 21 complied. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 25 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 26 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 28 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 1 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to 2 comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing 3 terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order). 4 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days why sanctions, 5 including monetary sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order, or 6 to file a stipulation to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: March 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CARLOS GONZALEZ, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01727-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS ) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THE PARTIES’ 13 v. ) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ) ORDER 14 CLEAN HARBORS, INC., et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 After the parties reported they had settled the action (Doc. 32), the Court ordered the parties to 18 file a stipulation to dismiss the case no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 33 at 1) The Court advised 19 the parties “advised that [their] failure to comply with this order may result in the Court imposing 20 sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id., emphasis omitted) However, they have not 21 complied. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 25 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 26 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 28 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 1 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to 2 comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing 3 terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order). 4 Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days why sanctions, 5 including monetary sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order, or 6 to file a stipulation to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: March 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carlos Gonzalez v. Clean Harbors, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-gonzalez-v-clean-harbors-inc-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack