Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01328/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01328-5/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

Previously, the parties were referred to the Courts’ Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program, 

where the action was settled. Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to file a stipulated request for 

dismissal no later than October 28, 2016. (Doc. 31) The parties were informed that “failure to comply 

with this order may result in the Court imposing sanctions, including the dismissal of the action.” (Id.

at 1, emphasis omitted.) However, to date, the parties have failed to comply with or otherwise respond 

to 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 

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 

BYRON CHAPMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AJMER-KULDIP BHOGAL, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01328 - JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-01328-JLT Document 32 Filed 10/31/16 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

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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with 

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

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed or monetary sanctions imposed for their 

failure comply with the Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file a stipulated request for dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01328-JLT Document 32 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2