Marsh v. Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 31, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01518
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TERRANCE MARSH, et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-01518-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC. COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS;

ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY 15 Defendant. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

16 (Doc. 12) 17 18 Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh initiated this action with the filing of a 19 complaint against Defendant Nations Direct Mortgate, LLC, on October 24, 2023. (Doc. 1). 20 After initially seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiffs ultimately paid the filing fee on 21 March 13, 2024. (Docs. 2-4, 6, 7-8, 10). On March 19, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued a 22 summons for service on Defendant and the Court entered an order setting a mandatory 23 scheduling conference, both of which were served on Plaintiffs. (Docs. 11, 12). The order 24 setting the mandatory scheduling conference provides in relevant part:

25 The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall 26 diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file 27 proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of 28 1 complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 5 unserved defendants.

3 || (Doc. 12 at 1) (emphasis added). 4 Nothwithstanding this order and the fact that Plaintiffs have had more than two months to 5 || serve the summons and complaint on Defendant and file proof of service thereon, they have 6 || seemingly failed to do so or otherwise make a filing with the Court explaining the delay in 7 || effecting service. 8 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 9 || Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 10 |} sanctions... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 11 || its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 12 || dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 For these reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 14 1. No later than June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why 15 || sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to prosecute this action and to serve the 16 |} Summons and complaint in a timely fashion as ordered. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may comply 17 || with this order by filing a proof of service demonstrating the summons and complaint has been 18 || served on Defendant; and 19 2. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to August 1, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. 20 21 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, 22 || including a recommendation by the undersigned to dismiss this action. 23 34 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: _ May 31, 2024 | Ww ¥ D ( UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28