Delgado v. Target Corporation

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01396
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 VIRIDIANA DELGADO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01396-KES-CDB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN 12 v. WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 13 NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO TARGET CORPORATION, APPEAR AT SCHEDULING 14 CONFERENCE Defendant, 15 (Doc. 2) 16 THREE-DAY DEADLINE 17

18 Plaintiff Viridiana Delgado (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 19 in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-103400, on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 1). 20 Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) removed the state action to this Court on 21 November 14, 2024. (Id.). On November 14, 2024, the Court entered the order setting the initial 22 scheduling conference for February 11, 2025, at 9:30 AM. (Doc. 2). In its order, the parties 23 were provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom deputy for the parties to 24 request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. (Id. at 2). Further, the courtroom 25 deputy forwarded the Zoom connection details via email to counsel for the parties in advance of 26 the scheduling conference. 27 The parties convened via Zoom videoconference for a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on February 11, 2025. Jason M. Avelar and Theresa W. 1 | Esqueda appeared on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff did not appear either personally or through 2 | counsel. As such, the Court was unable to schedule the case. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure 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 5 | sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 In light of counsel for Plaintiff's failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference 9 | on February 11, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within 10 | three days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to 11 | obey this Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s filing in response to this order also must identify proposed 12 | dates agreeable to counsel for Defendants to reconvene for scheduling conference no earlier 13 | than 14 days from the date of this order. 14 Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of 15 | sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss the case. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 11, 2025 | br Pr 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28