Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01209/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01209-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GGNSC ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES, 

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company,

 Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-1209-MCE-GSA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 14, 2015, the Court held a hearing on a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of 

record filed by attorney Joshua Richtel, who, at the time, represented Plaintiff, Betty Carroll 

(“Plaintiff”) in this matter. (Docs. 20 and 25). On July 29, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

personally appear at the hearing on Mr. Richtel’s Motion to Withdraw. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was 

also given instructions on how to notify the Court that she had retained new counsel to represent 

her during these proceedings. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was advised that if new counsel was 

substituted in, the hearing would likely be vacated. However, if no substitution of counsel was 

received, her attendance at the proceedings was required. She was further advised that failure to 

personally appear at the hearing may result in dismissal of her case for failing to prosecute this 

Case 1:14-cv-01209-MCE-GSA Document 26 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

action. (Doc. 21).

Despite the Court’s order, Plaintiff has not informed the Court that she retained new 

counsel. Additionally, she failed to appear for the hearing, and she did not contact the Court in 

any way to explain her non-appearance. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause 

why this case should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with this Court’s orders and for 

her failure to prosecute this case. 

Rule 110 of this Court’s Local Rules provides that the “failure of counsel or of a party to 

comply ... with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” This Court has the inherent power to 

manage its docket. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). In the 

exercise of that power, the Court may dismiss an action for a party’s failure to obey court orders 

and to prosecute the case. Id; also see Malone, 833 F.2d at130 (affirming district court’s 

dismissal of action for a party’s failure to comply with court orders); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (the district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua 

sponte for lack of prosecution). The Court is required to weigh several factors in determining 

whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey court orders: (1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424; 

Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-133. Furthermore, a dismissal for lack of prosecution must be supported 

by a showing of unreasonable delay, which creates a presumption of injury to the defense and 

prejudices the Court’s need to manage its docket. Id. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff Betty Carroll is ORDERED to personally appear on September 4,

Case 1:14-cv-01209-MCE-GSA Document 26 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2015, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10, to show cause, if any exists, for her failure to appear at the 

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s appearance is necessary so 

that the Court can properly manage this litigation. If Plaintiff is unable to attend this hearing, she 

must notify the Court in writing prior to the hearing, explain the reason for her inability to attend, 

and establish good cause for a continuance. If Plaintiff obtains new counsel before September 4, 

2015, she shall notify the Court in writing prior to the hearing. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure 

to appear at the hearing on this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Plaintiff at the following address :

9554 North Winery Avenue

Fresno, California 93720

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01209-MCE-GSA Document 26 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 3