Singh v. Bardini

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KARANDEEP SINGH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01275-KES-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT SHOW 12 CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE EMILIA BARDINI, et al., (ECF No. 8) Defendants. SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 16 On February 26, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ untimely stipulation that the new date for Defendants to file an answer or other dispositive pleading is March 3, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) Therein, the Court noted that “[s]hould Defendants miss a further deadline, the Court will issue an order to show cause and will consider imposing sanctions.” (Id.) As of March 6, 2025, Defendants have not filed an answer or responsive pleading.

21 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).

27 Defendants shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with a Court order.

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within seven (7) days from the date of | entry of this order, Defendants shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed 3 the failure to comply with a court order and file an answer or responsive pleading.

4 | Defendants are advised that filing an answer or responsive pleading without showing cause in | writing why sanctions should not issue is an insufficient response to this order.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se g Dated: _ March 6, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 9 United States Magistrate Judge