Delgado v. Target Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

Plaintiff Viridiana Delgado (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-103400, on October 9, 2024. (Doc. 1). Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) removed the state action to this Court on November 14, 2024. (Id.). On November 14, 2024, the Court entered the order setting the initial scheduling conference for February 11, 2025, at 9:30 AM. (Doc. 2). In its order, the parties were provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom deputy for the parties to request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. (Id. at 2). Further, the courtroom deputy forwarded the Zoom connection details via email to counsel for the parties in advance of the scheduling conference. 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. Esqueda appeared on behalf of Defendant. Plaintiff did not appear either personally or through counsel. As such, the Court was unable to schedule the case. 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 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. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of counsel for Plaintiff's failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference on February 11, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within three days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey this Court’s orders. Plaintiff’s filing in response to this order also must identify proposed dates agreeable to counsel for Defendants to reconvene for scheduling conference no earlier than 14 days from the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 11, 2025 | br Pr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE