Bray v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REGINA BRAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00268-KES-CDB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE IN v. WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 13 NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al., APPEAR AT SCHEDULING 14 CONFERENCE Defendants, (Doc. 6) 3-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff Regina Bray (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on August 30, 2024, in the County of Kern Superior Court, Case No. BCV-24-102974. (Doc. 1).

20 Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC and Michael May (collectively, “Defendants”) removed the action to this Court on March 3, 2025. Id. On June 2, 2025, an initial scheduling conference was held off the record, but the case was not scheduled at the parties’ joint request to accommodate a scheduled mediation. Accordingly, the scheduling conference was reset for July 14, 2025, at 10:00 AM. (Doc. 6).

25 In the order setting the initial scheduling conference entered on March 3, 2025, the parties were provided the email address for the undersigned’s courtroom deputy for the parties to request and obtain Zoom teleconference connection details. (Doc. 2 at 2). Further, the courtroom deputy forwarded the Zoom connection details via email to counsel for the parties in | advance of both the initial and the reset scheduling conferences.

2 On July 14, 2025, the Court convened via Zoom videoconference for the reset scheduling | conference. (Doc. 7). Devin S. Lindsay appeared on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff did not | appear either personally or through counsel. As such, the Court was unable to schedule the case.

5 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure 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.

Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

10 In light of counsel for Plaintiff's failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference | on July 14, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within | three (3) days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiffs failure | to obey this Court’s orders. Plaintiffs filing in response to this order also must identify | proposed dates agreeable to counsel for Defendants to reconvene for scheduling conference no | earlier than 14 days from the date of this order.

16 Failure to comply with this order to show cause may result in the imposition of | sanctions, up to and including a recommendation to dismiss the case.

18 | TT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 14, 2025 | br Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE