Murillo v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA MURILLO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00947-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY PORTFOLIO RECOVERY (ECF No. 8) ASSOCIATES, LLC, 15 DEADLINE: December 2, 2022 Defendant.

18 Plaintiff Patricia Murillo initiated this action on July 29, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 7.) Accordingly, the Court vacated all matters and ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by November 18, 2022. (ECF No. 8.) The Court notes that the deadline to file dispositional documents has expired, but nothing has been filed.

23 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 Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

1 The Court shall require the parties to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the | failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with the Court’s October 24, 2022 order | (ECF No. 8).

4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than December 2, 2022, why 6 monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional 7 documents as required by the October 24, 2022 order; and 8 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _November 28, 2022 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE