Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01727/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01727-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

After the parties reported they had settled the action (Doc. 32), the Court ordered the parties to 

file a stipulation to dismiss the case no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 33 at 1) The Court advised 

the parties “advised that [their] failure to comply with this order may result in the Court imposing 

sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id., emphasis omitted) However, they have not 

complied.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 

CARLOS GONZALEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLEAN HARBORS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01727-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THE PARTIES’ 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER

Case 1:18-cv-01727-JLT Document 34 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to 

comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing 

terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order).

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days why sanctions, 

including monetary sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order, or 

to file a stipulation to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01727-JLT Document 34 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 2