Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00027-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

On January 4, 2016, the Court signed the parties’ proposed consent decree. (Doc. 29) The 

consent decree resolved all matters except for “the amount of Plaintiff’s claims for damages or the 

amount of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs in this Action.” (Id. at 4) On April 26, 2016, 

Plaintiff informed the Court that that the parties agreed to engage in mediation but did not have a date 

scheduled for the mediation to occur. (Doc. 32) Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to file a 

joint status report “[n]o later than May 27, 2016 and every 60 days thereafter” related to the 

mediation proceedings. (Doc. 33 at 2, emphasis in original) To date, the parties have failed to file a 

status report or otherwise comply with the Court’s order.

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 

DEBRA ANGLIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WEST SIDE HEALTH CARD DISTRICT and 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 

GROUP, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00027 -JLT

ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-00027-JLT Document 34 Filed 06/07/16 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

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 impose sanctions for 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. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and comply with an 

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

failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

(sanctioning the party for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, within seven days, the parties SHALL show cause in writing why the action 

should not be dismissed and/or the answer stricken and default entered for their failure comply with 

the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file a joint status report regarding the mediation proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00027-JLT Document 34 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2