Piombino v. City of Fresno

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CYNTHIA PIOMBINO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00298-KES-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO FILE JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT 14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., MAY 27, 2025 DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 A scheduling conference is currently set for May 29, 2025 in this matter. (ECF No. 19.) 18 The parties were ordered to file a joint scheduling report one full week prior to the scheduling 19 conference. No joint report was filed. 20 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 21 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 22 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 23 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 24 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 25 2000). 26 The Court shall require that the parties show cause why sanctions should not issue for the 27 failure to file a joint report in compliance with orders setting the mandatory scheduling 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than May 27, 2025 why sanctions 3 should not issue for the failure to file a joint scheduling report as required by the 4 December 10, 2024 order (ECF No. 19). The parties are advised that filing a joint 5 scheduling report without showing cause in writing why sanctions should not 6 issue is an insufficient response to this order; and 7 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of sanctions, up to 8 and including dismissal of this action. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _May 23, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28