Michelle Rizvanovic v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE RIZVANOVIC, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-01278-CDB and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR v. FAILURE TO FILE JOINT STATUS 14 REPORTS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 15 (Doc. 36) Defendants. 16 TWO DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On January 20, 2023, this Court granted in part the motion of United Parcel Service, Inc. 19 (“UPS”) to compel Plaintiff Michelle Rizvanovic to arbitrate her claims and to stay the action. 20 (Doc. 36). In its order, the Court directed the parties to file a “joint status report” every 90 days 21 updating the Court on the status of the action. Id. at 14. 22 To date, the parties have failed to file a single joint status report. Instead, on July 7, 2023, 23 the parties filed individual reports. (Docs. 39, 40). Approximately 90 days later, they again filed 24 individual reports. (Docs. 41, 42). On January 3 and April 2, 2024, UPS filed status reports 25 without contribution by Plaintiff (Docs. 43, 44) and Plaintiff made no separate filings addressing 26 the status of the case. 27 It should go without saying that a “joint” status report requires meet/confer efforts among ] intent and expectation that the parties comply with the Court’s order by filing a single, jointly 2 |executed status report every 90 days. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 4 |or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 |sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the Court has the inherent power 6 | to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 {including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 8 | 2000). 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within two (2) days of entry of 10 | this Order, the parties shall show cause in writing why they should not be sanctioned for failing 11 |to timely comply with the Court’s order to file periodic, 90-day joint status reports. In the 12 | alternative, the parties may comply with this Order by filing the required April 2024 joint status 13 report by that same deadline. 14 Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions, up 15 | to and including financial sanctions and dismissal of the action. Further, any future failures 16 | by the parties to timely file a joint (e.g., a single, jointly executed) status report in compliance 17 | with the Court’s order (Doc. 36) will result in the imposition of sanctions. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 4, 2024 | Narn D Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28