Gutierrez v. Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC

Opinion

SANTOS GUTIERREZ and BLANCA Case No. 1:23-cv-1369 JLT HBK MARTINEZ, ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiffs, WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY v. WITH THE COURT’S ORDER TO FILE HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, dba HELENA AGRI-CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., Defendants. On September 24, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the and ordered Plaintiffs to “file the signed amended complaint, which was previously lodged unsigned, within two days of the date of service of this order.” (Doc. 23 at 7, emphasis in original.) Plaintiffs failed to file the amended complaint as ordered. The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including terminating sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). For example, a court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order directing the party to file an amended complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order). Accordingly, no later than September 30, 2024, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, file the amended complaint as previously ordered. g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 27, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE