Davis v. Walmart Inc.

Opinion

ROBERT DONALD DAVIS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01381-CDB

Plaintiff, ORDER TO MICHAEL DOMINGO TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PRACTICE IN THIS COURT WITHOUT

Defendants. ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TEN DAY-DEADLINE

On October 27, 2022, the Clerk of Court directed Plaintiff’s attorney, Michael Domingo, to register for admission to this Court. (ECF No. 5.) To date, Attorney Domingo has failed to comply with this direction and remains ineligible to prosecute this action. 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). Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days of entry of this order, Attorney Domingo shall show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned for failing to timely register for admissions to this Court. Attorney Domingo may comply with this order by filing either (1) a status report outlining why he has failed to register for admissions, or (2) appropriate papers to register for admissions. Plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in dismissal of this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, based on Attorney Domingo’s failure to apply for admissions to this Court, that the Initial Scheduling Conference set for January 24, 2023, is rescheduled for February 23, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 6, 2023 | Word bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE