Jackson v. Fastenal Company

E.D. California

Jackson v. Fastenal Company

DecidedSeptember 23, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00345

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Fastenal Company (Jackson v. Fastenal Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MATTER SHOULD 13 v. NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 FASTENAL COMPANY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

16 17 On January 21, 2020, Mieshia Marie Jackson (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all 18 others similarly situated, filed this action in the Stanislaus County Superior Court against 19 Fastenal Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of California labor law. (ECF No. 1-1.) 20 On March 4, 2020, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 21 1.) 22 On May 28, 2020, the Court issued a phased scheduling order. (ECF No. 9.) On 23 December 23, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court modified the scheduling order 24 and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification until September 13, 25 2021. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline to file the motion for class certification has passed and no 26 motion has been filed nor has Plaintiff requested an extension of time to do so. 27 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 1 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 2 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 3 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 4 | 2000). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PLAINTIFF SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN 6 | WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why this matter should not be 7 | dismissed for failure to comply with the December 23, 2020 order, and failure to prosecute. 8 | Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of 9 | sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 12 | Dated: _ September 22, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MATTER SHOULD 13 v. NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 FASTENAL COMPANY, FIVE DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

16 17 On January 21, 2020, Mieshia Marie Jackson (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and all 18 others similarly situated, filed this action in the Stanislaus County Superior Court against 19 Fastenal Company (“Defendant”) alleging violations of California labor law. (ECF No. 1-1.) 20 On March 4, 2020, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 21 1.) 22 On May 28, 2020, the Court issued a phased scheduling order. (ECF No. 9.) On 23 December 23, 2020, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court modified the scheduling order 24 and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification until September 13, 25 2021. (ECF No. 11.) The deadline to file the motion for class certification has passed and no 26 motion has been filed nor has Plaintiff requested an extension of time to do so. 27 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 1 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 2 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 3 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 4 | 2000). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PLAINTIFF SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN 6 | WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why this matter should not be 7 | dismissed for failure to comply with the December 23, 2020 order, and failure to prosecute. 8 | Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of 9 | sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 12 | Dated: _ September 22, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Fastenal Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-fastenal-company-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack