Avalos v. Hanford Mall 2020 LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00231-DAD-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY MONETARY SANCTIONS OF

v. $100 PER DAY SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

HANFORD MALL 2020 LLC, et al., AND CONTINUING MANDATORY

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 31,

Defendants. 2021

FIVE DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff George Avalos filed this action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., on February 22, 2021. On February 23, 2021, a scheduling order issued setting the mandatory scheduling conference for May 18, 2021. On March 22, 2021, Plaintiff returned a proof of service showing that Defendant Hanford Mall 2020 LLC had been served by substitute service on March 9, 2021 with a copy mailed on March 9, 2021.

On March 24, 2021 a first amended complaint was filed adding Defendant Apple Mid Cal II LLC as a defendant. On May 20, 2021, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to file notice of the status of the action as no answer to the first amended complaint had been filed by Defendant Hanford Mall 2020 LLC and proof of service had not been filed for Defendant Apple Mid Cal II LLC and proof of service on Defendant Apple Mid Cal II was filed. The order required a response to be filed within five days. More than five days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the April 20, 2021 order to show cause.

Further, this is not the first time that this Court has been required to address Plaintiff’s failure to comply with its orders. See Avalos v. East Africa Humanitarian Organization Properties, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01605-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (order to show cause for failure to comply with court order); Avalos v. Franco De Pizano, No. 1:20-cv-01571-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. March 2, 2021) (same); Avalos v. Mascot LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01739-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. March 16, 2021) (same).

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).

The March 9, 2021 order discharging the order to show cause in Avalos v. Franco De Pizano stated, “Plaintiff is advised that when a deadline is unable to be met, the prudent course is to request an extension of the deadline and such failures to comply in the future may result in the issuance of monetary sanctions.” No. 1:30-cv-01571-DAD-SAB, ECF No. 24 at 1-2. In Avalos v. Mascott LLC, Plaintiff was advised “that any further failures to comply with court orders by Plaintiff in this or any other case may result in the issuance of monetary sanctions.” No. 1:20-cv- 01739-DAD-SAB, ECF No. 9 at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff received notice that monetary sanctions would be imposed for his future failures to comply with court orders. It appears to the Court that the imposition of monetary sanctions is appropriate due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply and the repeated failures to comply with similar orders. In order to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the order at issue in this matter, the Court intends to issue sanctions of $100.00 per day for every day that the deadline to comply is not met.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order why monetary sanctions of $100 per day beginning on April 27, 2021 through the date of the filing of the notice required by the April 20, 2021 order should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply.

2. The mandatory scheduling conference set for May 18, 2021, is CONTINUED to

August 31, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9; 3. A joint scheduling report shall be filed seven (7) days prior to the scheduling conference; and 4. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ee Dated: _April 29, 2021_ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE