Trujillo v. Conrad

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-01627-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER ETHAN CONRAD, et al., THREE DAY DEADLINE Defendants.

ITALIAN CAFE GOURMET FOOD

Cross Claimant

v.

Cross Defendant.

On March 9, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss Defendant Italian Café Gourmet Food Service Inc. from this action. (ECF No. 61.) However, the stipulation did not address the cross claim by Italian Café Gourmet Food Service’s Inc. against Ethan Conrad. On this same date, an order issued requiring the parties to address the status of the cross claim within three days. (ECF No. 62.) More than three days have passed and the parties have responded to the March 9, 2021 order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules pr 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 pnd may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal pf the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of the date of entry of this order, the parties SHALL SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the March 9, 2021 order. T IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Pated: _March 16, 2021 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE