Preimesberger v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JAMES R. PREIMESBERGER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01441-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

Defendant. (ECF No. 46)

On July 30, 2021, a scheduling conference was held in this action. (ECF No. 45.) Pursuant to the matters discussed at the conference, the Court set a date for the filing of any amended pleadings, a date for the exchange of initial discovery, and set a status conference for March 1, 2022, to address the need for further scheduling. (ECF No. 46.) The Court ordered the parties to file a status report seven (7) days prior to the status conference. (Id.) The parties did not file a status report and the deadline has now expired. 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.” 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). The Court shall require the parties to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to file a status report in compliance with the July 30, 2021 order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties shall show cause in writing within three (3) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for the failure to file a joint status report as required by the Court’s July 30, 2021 order; and 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ Dated: _February 23, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE