City of Merced v. R A Fields Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:92-cv-05627
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF MERCED, et al., Case No. 1:92-cv-05627-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF CITY OF 12 MERCED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A R A FIELDS INC., et al., COURT ORDER 14 Defendants. (ECF No. 1830) 15 APRIL 21, 2025 DEADLINE 16

17 On January 20, 2009, the Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill entered an order requiring Plaintiff 18 “City of Merced to file a status report no later than January 20, 2010, and every 12 months 19 thereafter until this action is resolved.” (ECF No. 1797) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s 20 2024 status report did not indicate that this action had been resolved. (See ECF Nos. 1826, 1829.) 21 On April 10, 2025, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file a status report by April 14, 2025. (ECF 22 No. 1830.) Plaintiff failed to file such report or otherwise request an extension of time to do so. 23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 24 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 25 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 26 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 27 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 28 2000). 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. No later than April 21, 2025, Plaintiff City of Merced shall show cause in writing 3 why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Court’s order and 4 failing to timely file a status report. Plaintiff City of Merced is advised that filing a 5 status report without _also filing documents showing cause_in_ writing why 6 sanctions should not issue does not constitute compliance with this order; and 7 2. If Plaintiff City of Merced fails to comply with this order, Plaintiff and □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 counsel shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court $50.00 per 9 day, beginning on April 22, 2025, until Plaintiff City of Merced files a compliant 10 response to the Court’s April 10, 2025 order (ECF No. 1830). 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 13 | Dated: _ April 15, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28