Maldonado v. City of Fresno

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MARISSA MALDONADO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00102-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY MONETARY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO FILE SCHEDULING 14 CITY OF FRESNO, REPORT

15 Defendant. DEADLINE: JUNE 28, 2024

16 (ECF No. 15)

17 18 A scheduling conference is set for July 2, 2024 in this matter. (ECF No. 15.) Pursuant to 19 the order continuing the mandatory scheduling conference, the parties were ordered to file a joint 20 scheduling report one full week prior to the scheduling conference. (Id. at 2.) No joint report 21 has been filed in this action. 22 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 23 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 24 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 25 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 26 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 27 2000). The Court shall require the parties to show cause why monetary sanctions should not 1 | issue for the failure to file a joint report in compliance with order setting the mandatory 2 | scheduling conference. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than June 28, 2024 why monetary 5 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file a joint scheduling report as 6 required by the May 3, 2024 order continuing the mandatory scheduling 7 conference; and 8 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _June 26, 2024 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28