Genoveva Gonzalez v. Walmart Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GENOVEVA GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00756-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING SANCTIONS ORDER AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 13 v. SANCTIONS WALMART INC., et al., (Docs. 18, 19) 15 Defendants. 14-Day Deadline 17 Plaintiff Genoveva Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on March 27, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-25-101113. (Doc. 1).

19 Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to this Court on June 20, 2025. Id. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant and un-served Defendant Deborah Walters arising from an injury Plaintiff sustained during a incident at Defendant’s Walmart store located in Bakersfield, California. Id. 23 On September 16, 2025, the Court entered the operative scheduling order setting forth discovery, pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. (Doc. 16). That same day, based on counsel for Plaintiff's representations during the scheduling conference that Defendant Deborah Walters has not been served, and because the time to effect such service had expired (see id. at 2), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file within seven (7) days either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters or a report demonstrating good cause for any requested extension of time to effect service upon Defendant Walters. (Doc. 15) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)); accord (Doc. 16 at 2). Plaintiff was forewarned that any failure to timely comply with this order would result in a recommendation to dismiss Defendant Walters. (Doc. 15). After Plaintiff failed to timely comply with the Court’s orders, on September 24, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing within two (2) days why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc.

6 17). Plaintiff was admonished that the failure to timely comply with the Court’s order could result in the imposition of sanctions, including financial sanctions and/or a recommendation to dismiss this case. Id. 9 After Plaintiff failed to file any response in compliance with the Court’s order to show cause, and the deadline to do so had passed, on September 29, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 per day from the date of the order until she files either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters or a report demonstrating good cause for any requested extension of time to effect service upon Defendant Walters. (Doc. 18 at 4). Plaintiff was admonished that her filing of either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters or a report as described above would not relieve her of the sanction imposed commencing on the date of the order, and that the daily deadline to comply expires at the close of business each day at 5:00 PM.

17 Id. 18 That same day, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters. (Doc.

19 19). In light of Plaintiff’s prompt compliance with the Court’s sanctions order, the Court shall discharge further sanctions and shall impose a total sanction of $100.00 based on the Court’s order.

21 Accordingly, to deter Plaintiff and its counsel from future violations of the Court’s orders and the Local Rules and to ensure they abide by all applicable deadlines in this case, the Court will impose a total sanction of $100.00. See, e.g., Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 933 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming district court’s award of monetary sanction that “was coercive and not compensatory” as “an amount required to prevent future violations”) (unpublished). The Court concludes that such a sanction is sufficient but not more than necessary to accomplish its coercive aim light of the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued delinquency. See Gen. Sig. Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986).

1 Conclusion and Order 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff shall pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 in full satisfaction of the sanction 4 imposed in this case no later than October 14, 2025; 5 2. Plaintiffs counsel shall promptly file proof of payment with the Court once payment 6 is made; and 7 3. such payment and proof of payment is not timely made, additional sanctions of 8 $50.00 per day shall issue from October 14, 2025, until full payment is received.

9 Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this order will result in the imposition of | sanctions. | Tr Is SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 30, 2025 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE