Rangel v. City of Modesto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN RANGEL, Case No. 1:19-cv-00638-NONE-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT 13 v. ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER CITY OF MODESTO, et al., (ECF No.) 15 Defendants.

FIVE DAY DEADLINE 17 A notice of settlement was filed in this action and the parties were ordered to file dispositional documents within forty-five days of August 13, 2020. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) More than forty-five days have passed and dispositional documents have not been filed as required by the August 13, 2020 order.

21 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).

27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for WAS 9G I SPAR □□□ oO PIR Ae OY ee | the failure to file dispositive documents in compliance with the August 13, 2020 order. The | parties are forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of | sanctions.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee | Dated: _ October 1, 2020 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE