Chaudhry v. Smith

E.D. California

Chaudhry v. Smith

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 11, 2021·No. 1:16-cv-01243·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERVAIZ A. CHAUDHRY, M.D., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01243-SAB

Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS SONIA ANGELL, et al., (FIVE DAY DEADLINE) Defendants.

On September 21, 2020, the parties in this action indicated that they would waive a jury trial. (ECF No. 114.) On October 30, 2020, a second amended pretrial order issued in which the parties were ordered to file a waiver of jury trial within five days if they had not already done so. (ECF No. 115.) On November 2, 2020, a third amended pretrial order issued ordering the parties to file a waiver of jury trial within five days. (ECF No. 116.) On March 5, 2021, a status conference was held to set this matter for trial. (ECF No. 133.) On this same date a fifth amended pretrial order issued and this matter is set for a bench trial on May 4, 2021. (ECF No. 134.) In the March 5, 2021 pretrial order, the parties were ordered to file a waiver of jury trial within five days. (Id.) More than five days have passed and despite the three orders requiring a waiver of jury trial to be filed, neither of the parties have complied. 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the October 30, 2020; November 2, 2020; and March 5, 2021 pretrial orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _March 11, 2021 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERVAIZ A. CHAUDHRY, M.D., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01243-SAB

Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS SONIA ANGELL, et al., (FIVE DAY DEADLINE) Defendants.

On September 21, 2020, the parties in this action indicated that they would waive a jury trial. (ECF No. 114.) On October 30, 2020, a second amended pretrial order issued in which the parties were ordered to file a waiver of jury trial within five days if they had not already done so. (ECF No. 115.) On November 2, 2020, a third amended pretrial order issued ordering the parties to file a waiver of jury trial within five days. (ECF No. 116.) On March 5, 2021, a status conference was held to set this matter for trial. (ECF No. 133.) On this same date a fifth amended pretrial order issued and this matter is set for a bench trial on May 4, 2021. (ECF No. 134.) In the March 5, 2021 pretrial order, the parties were ordered to file a waiver of jury trial within five days. (Id.) More than five days have passed and despite the three orders requiring a waiver of jury trial to be filed, neither of the parties have complied. 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the October 30, 2020; November 2, 2020; and March 5, 2021 pretrial orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _March 11, 2021 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Chaudhry v. Smith, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Chaudhry v. Smith (Chaudhry v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related