Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Molina

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB COMPANY, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT LUPE C. FLORES TO 12 SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

15 Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, (Doc. 49) 16 v. 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 LUPE C. FLORES, 18 Defendant/Cross-Defendant. 19

20 21 On September 5, 2024, the Court issued an order (Doc. 49) denying without prejudice both 22 Cross-Plaintiff Molina’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 42) and Cross-Defendant Lupe 23 Flores’ motion for appointment of guardian ad litem and appointment of counsel (Doc. 48). In 24 its order, the Court set and ordered the parties to appear for a mandatory status conference on 25 October 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m, and provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom 26 deputy for the parties to request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. See (Doc. 27 49). The Court served the order by mail on Lupe Flores on the day of its issuance. Id. 1 After the issuance of the order, on October 10, 2024, Lupe Flores filed a fifth! motion to 2 | appoint guardian ad litem, also requesting appointment of counsel. (Doc. 50). In her motion, 3 | Lupe Flores did not identify any conflict that would result in her inability to attend the Court’s 4 | mandatory status conference set for October 23, 2024. 5 The Court convened for the mandatory status conference on the scheduled date of October 6 | 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m, via Zoom videoconference. The videoconference link had been supplied 7 | to all parties in advance. Cross-Plaintiff Molina and her counsel, Eric Leroy, made an appearance. 8 | However, Lupe Flores did not appear and neither did any representative or power of attorney on 9 | her behalf. As such, the Court was unable to discuss the current posture of the case, the positions 10 | of the parties, and any plans for further litigation of the matter. 11 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 12 | or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 13 | sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 14 | its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate. Bautista 15 | v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 In light of Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores’ failure to appear at the mandatory status 17 | conference on October 23, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores shall 18 | show cause in writing within 14 days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed 19 | for her failure to obey this Court’s orders. At a minimum, Cross-Defendant Lupe Flores’ written 20 | response shall address her failure to appear at the conference and set forth any grounds for this 21 | Court to find her neglect should be excused. 22 Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of 23 | sanctions. Dated: _ October 23, 2024 | br Pr 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 ' The prior motions are Docs. 31, 39, 45, and 48.