Jackson v. Fastenal Company

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 23, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-00345·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00345-NONE-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MATTER SHOULD v. NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE FIVE DAY DEADLINE Defendant.

On January 21, 2020, Mieshia Marie Jackson (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed this action in the Stanislaus County Superior Court against Fastenal Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of California labor law. (ECF No. 1-1.) On March 4, 2020, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 28, 2020, the Court issued a phased scheduling order. (ECF No. 9.) On December 23, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court modified the scheduling order and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification until September 13, 2021. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline to file the motion for class certification has passed and no motion has been filed nor has Plaintiff requested an extension of time to do so. 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). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PLAINTIFF SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the December 23, 2020 order, and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ September 22, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Jackson v. Fastenal Company, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Jackson v. Fastenal Company (Jackson v. Fastenal Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bautista v. Los Angeles County
216 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)