1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GENOVEVA GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00756-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. AS TO WHY DAILY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT CONTINUE AND WHY FULL 14 WALMART INC., et al., SANCTION AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 15 Defendants. (Docs. 18, 21) 16 OCTOBER 24, 2025, DEADLINE 17 18 Background 19 Plaintiff Genoveva Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint 20 on March 27, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-25-101113. (Doc. 1). 21 Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the case to this Court on June 20, 2025. Id. 22 Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant arising from an injury Plaintiff sustained during a incident 23 at Defendant’s Walmart store located in Bakersfield, California. Id.1 24 On September 16, 2025, the Court entered the operative scheduling order setting forth 25 discovery, pretrial and trial dates and deadlines. (Doc. 16). That same day, based on counsel for 26 Plaintiff's representations during the scheduling conference that Defendant Deborah Walters has 27

28 1 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed formerly named Defendant Deborah Walters. (Docs. 19, 22). 1 not been served, and because the time to effect such service had expired (see id. at 2), the Court

2 ordered Plaintiff to file within seven (7) days either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant 3 Walters or a report demonstrating good cause for any requested extension of time to effect service 4 upon Defendant Walters. (Doc. 15) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)); accord (Doc. 16). After Plaintiff 5 failed to timely comply with the Court’s orders, on September 24, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff 6 to show cause in writing within two (2) days why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure 7 to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff was admonished that the failure to timely 8 comply with the Court’s order could result in the imposition of sanctions, including financial 9 sanctions and/or a recommendation to dismiss this case. Id. 10 After Plaintiff failed to file any response in compliance with the Court’s order to show 11 cause, and the deadline to do so had passed, on September 29, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 12 pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 per day from the date of the order until she filed either a notice 13 of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters or a report demonstrating good cause for any requested 14 extension of time to effect service upon Defendant Walters. (Doc. 18 at 4). Plaintiff was 15 admonished that her filing of either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Walters or a report 16 as described above would not relieve her of the sanction imposed commencing on the date of the 17 order, and that the daily deadline to comply expires at the close of business each day at 5:00 PM. 18 Id. 19 Shortly after the Court entered its sanctions order, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary 20 dismissal of Defendant Walters. (Doc. 19). In light of Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s 21 sanctions order, the Court discharged the order and imposed a total sanction of $100.00 for 22 Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Clerk of the Court 23 $100.00 in full satisfaction of the sanction imposed no later than October 14, 2025, and to promptly 24 file proof of payment with the Court once payment was made. Id. at 3. Plaintiff was forewarned 25 that if such payment and proof of payment is not timely made, additional sanctions of $50.00 per 26 day shall issue from October 14, 2025, until full payment is received, and that “[a]ny failure by 27 Plaintiff to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. (emphasis 28 original). 1 Plaintiff has not paid the Clerk of the Court $100.00 in full satisfaction of the sanction

2 imposed and has not filed any document seeking an extension or other relief of the deadline to do 3 so, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s September 30, 2025, 4 order (Doc. 21), as of the date of this order, additional sanctions of $50.00 per day have accrued 5 from October 14, 2025, totaling an amount of $550.00, including the $100.00 sanction initially 6 imposed. 7 Governing Authority 8 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is to 9 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To effectuate 10 this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court orders or 11 that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). 12 Relevant here, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney fails to 13 obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. 14 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 15 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501

(1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all 17 others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority 18 and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper,

(1980). In order to 19 compel a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue daily sanctions until 20 compliance is obtained. See Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,

(9th 21 Cir. 2015) (recognizing a district court’s authority to impose daily sanctions to coerce compliance 22 with court order); Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (discussing court’s 23 authority to impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what 24 he had refused to do.”). 25 Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of 26 counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 27 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent 28 power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these Rules 1 engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate Judge

2 may initiate proceedings for contempt under

or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, after 3 reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate 4 disciplinary action against the attorney.” Local Rule 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the 5 foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court 6 before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.”

7 Discussion 8 Here, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file either a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant 9 Walters or a report demonstrating good cause for any requested extension of time to effect service 10 upon Defendant Walters by September 23, 2025. (Doc. 15; Doc. 16 at 2). When Plaintiff failed to 11 comply by the deadline imposed, the Court ordered compliance at risk of sanction. See (Doc. 17). 12 After the imposition of a $100 sanction prompted by Plaintiff’s noncompliance (Doc. 18), Plaintiff 13 subsequently complied by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal on September 29, 2025. (Doc. 19). 14 On September 30, 2025, the Court imposed a total sanction of $100.00 to be paid to the Clerk of 15 the Court no later than October 14, 2025, at risk of further sanctions of $50.00 per day from that 16 date until full payment is received. (Doc. 21 at 3). Still, and despite the subsequent imposition of 17 daily sanctions prompted by Plaintiff’s noncompliance, Plaintiff still has failed to comply with the 18 Court’s orders in timely paying the Clerk of the Court the sanctions amount imposed and to 19 promptly file proof of payment with the Court thereafter. Aside from evidencing Plaintiff’s lack 20 of regard for complying with court orders, Plaintiff’s intransigence is preventing the Court from 21 efficiently managing its docket in this action. 22 As of the date of this order, daily sanctions are set to reach $550.00 by the daily deadline 23 imposed from the Court’s order (Doc. 21 at 3). Pursuant to California law, “a court shall notify the 24 State Bar of any of the following: . . . (3) The imposition of any judicial sanctions against an 25 attorney, except sanctions for failure to make discovery or monetary sanctions of less than one 26 thousand dollars ($1,000).”

(a)(3). Though the total sanctions 27 amount as of this order is below the $1,000 threshold for reporting to the State Bar, should the total 28 sanctions amount accrue over $1,000, the Court would be called upon to notify the State Bar of the 1 | sanctions imposed. 2 It is not clear if Plaintiff or her counsel are even aware of the ongoing daily sanctions, and 3 | counsel may have neglected to read the order entirely or otherwise failed to address it. The Court 4 | shall afford Plaintiff and her counsel an opportunity to explain why the total sanction amount 5 | already accrued as of this date should not be imposed in total, jointly and severally against Plaintiff 6 | and his counsel. The Court may accept a partial reduction of the total amount of sanctions based 7 | on aclear and convincing demonstration of good cause addressing the failure to timely pay to the 8 | Clerk of the Court the cumulative daily sanctions now owed. 9 To be clear to Plaintiff and her counsel, nothing in this order suspends the ongoing 10 | imposition of the daily sanctions that began from October 14, 2025, and the daily sanctions will 11 | continue to accrue during the pendency of the response period indicated in this order, until Plaintiff 12 | and counsel comply with the Court’s orders noted above and this order. 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that no later than October 24, 2025, 15 | Plaintiff Genoveva Gonzalez and counsel Sean Blythe Shriver shall show cause in writing why the 16 | cumulative, previously imposed sanction and daily sanction amount, set to reach $550.00 as of the 17 | date of this order (October 22, 2025), shall not be imposed jointly and severally, and why daily 18 | sanctions shall not continue to be imposed. 19 | Tr IS SO ORDERED. 20 | } ) Bo Dated: _ October 22, 2025 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28