Thomas v. Ace Market

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:24-cv-02234-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 ACE MARKET, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a complaint initiating this action on August 19, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) The 18 same day, a summons was issued and an initial scheduling conference was set for January 14, 19 2025. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On January 3, 2025, in light of the apparent lack of service on defendants 20 and the parties’ failure to file a joint status report as required, the court reset the initial scheduling 21 conference for February 24, 2025 and ordered the parties to file a status report regarding 22 scheduling no later than February 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not file any 23 report in compliance with the court’s orders and failed to appear at the February 24, 2025 initial 24 scheduling conference.1 (Doc. No. 9) 25

1 The court observes that on February 24, 2025, the same day as the initial scheduling 26 conference, plaintiff filed requests for entry of default as to defendants Ace Market and Kumar. 27 (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) Neither filing explains why plaintiff failed to file a status report by December 31, 2024 or February 24, 2025 as ordered and failed to appear at the February 24, 2025 28 scheduling conference as required. 1 Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within seven (7) days from 2 | the date of entry of this order why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to 3 | comply with court orders and prosecute this action. Further, counsel for plaintiff is ordered to 4 | show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue against him due to his failure to follow the 5 || court’s orders on numerous occasions.” See Mark Indus., Ltd. v. Sea Captain’s Choice, Inc., 50 6 | F.3d 730, 732 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting the court has the inherent power to manage its own 7 || proceedings and to “discipline the members of the bar who appear before it”); see also Erickson 8 | v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting the court’s discretion under its 9 | inherent power to fashion an appropriate sanction). 10 Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in this action being 11 | dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. | pated: _February 26, 2025 Da A. 2, ye 14 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > The court observes that plaintiff's counsel was also plaintiff’s attorney of record in Pena □□□ Motahar Motahar, Case No. 2:24-cv-01760-DAD-CKD, another recent case assigned to the 27 || undersigned where plaintiff's counsel failed to file a scheduling report as required on two occasions, failed to appear at the initial scheduling conference, and failed to respond to the court’s 28 | order to show cause, resulting in the dismissal of that action.