Ramirez v. Merrill Gardens, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIA BUSTOS RAMIREZ, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00542-SAB Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF HOLGUIN TO SHOW CAUSE v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO APPEAR AT Defendant. FIVE DAY DEADLINE On January 10, 2024, an order issued granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action and setting the final approval hearing for May 29, 2024. (ECF No. 54.) On May 1, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class and representative action settlement. (ECF No. 55.) Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on May 15, 2024. (ECF No. 56.) Counsel Allen Feghali appeared by video for Plaintiff Ramirez and counsel Diane O’Malley and Samantha Botros appeared by video for Defendant. There was no appearance at the hearing by Plaintiff Holguin. The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). 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 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff Holguin SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to appear at the May 29, 2024 final approval hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ Dated: _May 29, 2024 _ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE