1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 STORMY COX, Case No. 1:24-cv-00878-KES-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 13 v. NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 CITY OF PORTERVILLE,

15 Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE

16 17 A scheduling conference in this action was set for February 18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., 18 before the undersigned. (ECF No. 8.) No counsel for Defendant appeared at the scheduling 19 conference. 20 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 21 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 22 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 23 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 24 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

(9th Cir. 25 2000). 26 Defendant shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure 27 by counsel to make any appearance at the scheduling conference held on February 18, 2025. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within three (3) days from the date of 2 | entry of this order, Defendant shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed 3 | for the failure of counsel to attend the mandatory scheduling conference held on February 18, 4 | 2025. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 7 | Dated: _ February 18, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28