Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00509/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00509-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lorilee Immel,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

Company; Long-Term Disability Plan of

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0509-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this

action on or about March 14, 2008. (docket #1) On March 17, 2008, the Court issued a Notice

of Assignment and Order, docket #4, ordering Plaintiff to file on or before April 4 2008 her

written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a

United States district judge. As of today’s date, the Plaintiff has failed to file her written

election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United

States district judge. 

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the

court is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133

F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837 (9th

Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and, in

the exercise of that power, may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a

case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). A dismissal for want of

Case 2:08-cv-00509-FJM Document 9 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Rule

41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his or her claim is

grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d at 524. The

courts have read this rule to require prosecution with “reasonable diligence” if a plaintiff is to

avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Because the period within which Plaintiff was to file her written consent or

election has passed, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before April 22,

2008 why her Complaint against Defendants Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company;

Long-Term Disability Plan of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., should not be dismissed for

failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b),

FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by complying with the Court’s March 17, 2008

Order on or before April 22, 2008.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before April 22,

2008 why Plaintiff or her counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to timely comply with

court orders. Plaintiff or her counsel may discharge this Order to Show Cause by either

consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction or electing to have the case assigned to a district

judge before April 22, 2008.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00509-FJM Document 9 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2