Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02237/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02237-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Julio C. Tupac,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Intel Corp., a corporation; Tony

Boudreau; Leslie Kleck; Srinath Bathina,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2237-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

action on or about September 19, 2006. (docket #1) On October 4, 2006, the Court issued a

Notice of Assignment and Order (docket #3) ordering that Plaintiff shall file on or before

October 18, 2006 his written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect

to proceed before a United States district judge. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff shall

serve upon the Defendants the appropriate consent form, mailed on September 19, 2006 to

Plaintiff, at the time of service of his Complaint upon the Defendants.

As of this date, the Plaintiff has failed to file his written election to either consent

to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. It is

unknown to the Court if Plaintiff has yet served the each of the Defendants with his Complaint

and the appropriate consent form.

Docket #4 is a Certificate of Service of the Summons and Complaint upon

Defendant Leslie Kleck on October 6, 2006. Docket #5 is a Certificate of Service of the

Summons and Complaint upon Intel Corp., through "Molly Martinez, authorized to accept

Case 2:06-cv-02237-EHC Document 6 Filed 10/24/06 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 -

service, at her place of employment, located at CT Corporation" on October 6, 2006. These

two Certificates of Service make no mention of the appropriate consent form being served upon

these two Defendants. There is no service documentation as to Defendants Tony Boudreau and

Srinath Bathina.

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).

Because the period within which Plaintiff was to file his written election has

passed the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before November 7, 2006 why sanctions

should not be imposed upon Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court's order.

Accordingly,

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

 November 7, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed upon Plaintiff for failure to comply

with the Court's October 4, 2006 Order. Plaintiff may discharge any sanction by either

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

before November 7, 2006.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02237-EHC Document 6 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2