Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00077/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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 April 30, 2014, the parties filed their Joint Scheduling Conference Report, in which Plaintiff 

requested a jury trial. (Doc. 8 at 5.) Defendants requested a non-jury trial, asserting “Plaintiff has 

waived his right to a jury trial by not filing a jury demand within the required time frame.” (Id.) At the 

Court’s Scheduling Conference on May 9, 2014, the matter remained in dispute, and the Court set a 

briefing schedule for the parties to “file informal briefs regarding whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury 

trial (addressing, in particularly, whether ‘all necessary pleadings’ were filed before the removal).” 

(Doc. 10 at 3.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a brief on the matter no later than May 30, 2014. (Id.) In 

the alternative, if the parties resolved the issue prior to briefing, they were to file a joint notification to 

the Court.” (Id., n.2.) However, Plaintiff has not filed a brief, and no joint stipulation has been filed.

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 

J.R. SMEED, doing business as 

NATIONAL CHARGER LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00077 -AWI - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-00077-AWI-JLT Document 12 Filed 06/02/14 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

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 issue sanctions, including dismissal, 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) (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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 7 days of the date of service of this 

Order why sanctions, should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. In the 

alternative, Plaintiff SHALL file the brief regarding his right to a jury trial within 7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00077-AWI-JLT Document 12 Filed 06/02/14 Page 2 of 2