United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2021

Vasquez v. Wyndham LaQuinta

Vasquez v. Wyndham LaQuinta
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 15, 2021
Vasquez v. Wyndham LaQuinta

Trial Court Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAMON VASQUEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-01474-DAD-BAM 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 12 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AND FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE WYNDHAM LAQUINTA, et al., 14 Defendants. TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE 16 On June 18, 2020, Plaintiff Ramon Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in Fresno Superior Court. (Doc. No. 2.) On October 16, 2020, Defendant LQ Management, Inc., removed the action to this Court. (Id.) Also on October 16, 2020, this matter was set for an Initial Scheduling Conference on January 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 7.) On January 14, 2021, the Court held the Initial Scheduling Conference. Counsel for Defendant LQ Management, Inc., Jack Henning, appeared. However, Plaintiff failed to appear. Further, the remaining named Defendants Wyndham LaQuinta, Wyndham Hotel Management, Inc., and LaQuinta Franchising, Inc., have not been served pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

24 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

26 within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. 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).

2 Accordingly, Plaintiff Ramon Vasquez is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his failure to appear at the January 14, 2021 scheduling conference and his failure to effectuate service.

6 Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: January 14, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.