Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00673/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00673-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

The United States of America, for the Use

and Benefit of First Call Mechanical, Inc.,

a California corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sundt Construction, Inc., a California

corporation; and Fidelity and Deposit

Company of Maryland, a Maryland

corporation; Federal Insurance

Company, a New Jersey corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0673-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 26, 2007. (docket #1) On April 13, 2007, the Court issued a Notice

of Assignment and Order (docket #8) ordering that Plaintiff shall file on or before April 23,

2007 its 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, electronically transmitted to William Lee

Bruckner, and also mailed to Jessica J. Snyder and Charles Walker, counsel for Plaintiff, on

March 30, 2007 at the time of service of its Complaint upon the Defendants.

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

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

Case 2:07-cv-00673-LOA Document 13 Filed 05/03/07 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 -

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

the appropriate consent form.

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 its written election has

passed the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before May 11th, 2007 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

 May 11, 2007 why sanctions should not be imposed upon Plaintiff for failure to comply with

the Court's April 13, 2007 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 May 11,

2007.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00673-LOA Document 13 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2