1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOANNA PALACIOS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01383-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO 14 BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., et al., COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

15 Defendants. ORDER CONTINUING THE

MANDATORY SCHEDULING 16 CONFERENCE

17 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THIS ORDER AND 18 TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

19 FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 20 21 22 Plaintiff Joanna Palacios (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 23 on November 12, 2024. (Doc. 1). The same day, the Clerk of the Court issued summonses and 24 the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference for February 10, 2025. 25 (Docs. 2-3). The Court’s order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and 26 complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). The order further advised 27 Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, 28 including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of 1 service, and no Defendant has appeared in the action. 2 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 3 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 4 sanctions…within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 5 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 6 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

(9th Cir. 2000). 7 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant 8 is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 9 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 10 that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good 11 cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of 14 this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed – 15 including dismissal of unserved Defendants or this action in its entirety – for Plaintiff’s failure to 16 prosecute and to serve the summonses and complaint in a timely manner. Filing summonses 17 returned executed following entry of this order WILL NOT relieve Plaintiff of her obligation to 18 respond to this order in writing.1 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for February 20 10, 2025, is CONTINUED to March 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 21 And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on 22 Defendants within five (5) days of entry of this order and promptly file proof of service thereof. 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 The Court acknowledges counsel for Plaintiff’s transmission of an ex parte email 26 communication to the undersigned’s courtroom deputy on January 31, 2025, in which counsel sought guidance concerning submission of the required joint scheduling report in advance of the scheduling 27 conference. Counsel’s neglect in filing a summons returned executed or other filing seeking any extension of time to effect service of process on Defendant or otherwise explain the delay is a substantive 28 case matter not suitable for informal, ex parte communication with the Court. 1 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order to show cause will result in 2 || the imposition of sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss this action. 3 || TT IS SO ORDERED. “|| Dated: _February 3, 2025 | nnd Rr 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28