Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation

C.D. California

Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 6, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-06665·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. LA CV20-06665 JAK (PJWx) Date October 6, 2020 Title Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation, et al

Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Patricia Blunt Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

This Order is issued sua sponte in light of the failure of the parties to comply with earlier ones issued in this action. Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). In this action, the parties have failed to comply with three prior orders. First, pursuant to the Order Setting Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report, the parties were required to file a Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report by September 25, 2020. Dkt. 6. They did not do so. Second, as a result, an Order issued on September 28, 2020 directing the parties to file the Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report by September 30, 2020. Dkt. 7. Again, they did not so. Third, on October 2, 2020, an Order issued directing the parties to file the Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report on or before October 5, 2020, together with a declaration by counsel for each party stating why they did not comply with the two prior orders. Dkt. 8. Once again, there was no compliance with that Order. The October 2, 2020 Order also stated that a failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions and the issuance of an Order to Show Cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. On or before October 14, 2020, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, including a declaration from Plaintiffs counsel, explaining why there was no compliance with the three prior Orders, and stating why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders. That submission shall also include the overdue Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report. The Order to Show Cause will be taken under submission upon the filing of a timely response. If there is no timely response, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: 00 Initials of Preparer PB

Dawe 4 wt A

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. LA CV20-06665 JAK (PJWx) Date October 6, 2020 Title Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation, et al

Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Patricia Blunt Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

This Order is issued sua sponte in light of the failure of the parties to comply with earlier ones issued in this action. Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. A court has the inherent power to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962). In this action, the parties have failed to comply with three prior orders. First, pursuant to the Order Setting Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report, the parties were required to file a Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report by September 25, 2020. Dkt. 6. They did not do so. Second, as a result, an Order issued on September 28, 2020 directing the parties to file the Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report by September 30, 2020. Dkt. 7. Again, they did not so. Third, on October 2, 2020, an Order issued directing the parties to file the Joint Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report on or before October 5, 2020, together with a declaration by counsel for each party stating why they did not comply with the two prior orders. Dkt. 8. Once again, there was no compliance with that Order. The October 2, 2020 Order also stated that a failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions and the issuance of an Order to Show Cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. On or before October 14, 2020, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, including a declaration from Plaintiffs counsel, explaining why there was no compliance with the three prior Orders, and stating why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders. That submission shall also include the overdue Rule 16(b)/26(f) Report. The Order to Show Cause will be taken under submission upon the filing of a timely response. If there is no timely response, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: 00 Initials of Preparer PB

Dawe 4 wt A

Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation (Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related