La v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GARY LA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01544-KES-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, et al., TWO-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16

17 A scheduling conference in this action was set for March 27, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., before 18 the undersigned. (ECF No. 16.) No counsel for Plaintiff appeared at the scheduling conference. 19 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 20 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 21 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 22 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 23 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 24 2000). 25 Plaintiff shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure by 26 counsel to make any appearance at the scheduling conference held on March 27, 2025. 27 / / / 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within two (2) days from the date of entry 2 | of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the 3 | failure of counsel to attend the mandatory scheduling conference held on March 27, 2025. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ March 27, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28