Palomares v. City of Arvin

Opinion

MANUEL PALOMARES, by and Case No. 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB through his Guardian Ad Litem VIOLETA NEGRETE GARCIA, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE Plaintiff, IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

v. (Doc. 50)

CITY OF ARVIN, et al. TWO-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. On December 21, 2023, the assigned district judge adopted in full the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations to approve Plaintiff’s petition for approval of an incompetent person’s claims. (Docs. 49, 50). In the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, the assigned district judge ordered the parties to “file a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice, and lodge a separate order, no later than 30 days after issuance of this order.” (Doc. 50 at 2). As of the date of this order, more than 30 days have passed and the parties have not complied with the Court’s order to file a stipulation for dismissal. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED within two (2) days of entry of this Order, the parties shall show cause in writing why sanctions, including monetary sanctions or dismissal, should not be imposed for the parties’ failure to timely file dispositional documents as ordered by the Court. In the alternative, the parties may comply with this Order by filing dispositional documents by that same deadline. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 23, 2024 | hr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE