Tanzy v. Yaylaci

Opinion

INGRAM TANZY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01187-JLT-CDB

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE v. IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY AND FAILURE TO BAHRI YAYLACI, et al., PROSECUTE

Defendants. SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. 14)

On April 25, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal and judgment (the Order) and reopened this case. (Doc. 14). The Order directed Plaintiff to file proof of service within 20 days of the order (id. at p. 3), e.g., on or before May 15, 2023. Plaintiff filed a belated return of service for Defendant Yaylaci on May 17, 2023. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has yet to serve Defendant Long Island Freight Corp. 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). Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to prosecute this action and to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file proofs of service demonstrating the summons and complaint have been served to Defendant Long Island Freight Corp. Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause may result in the imposition of g || sanctions, including financial sanctions or a recommendation to dismiss the action. ITIS SO ORDERED. '0 | Dated: _ May 18, 2023 | wr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE