Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01429-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

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

Plaintiff initiated this action for interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy it issued to 

Michael Dauster, seeking a judicial declaration that Integon has no duty under the policy to defend or 

indemnify related to a swimming pool accident. The Clerk of Court entered default against the 

defendants remaining in this action, Michael Dauster and Megan Blackmon. (Docs. 14, 15) 

Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “seek default judgment as to the two remaining defendants” 

no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 25) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for default judgment 

or taken any other action to prosecute its claims against the remaining defendants.

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 

INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL DAUSTER., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 

ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Case 1:19-cv-01429-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/19/20 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

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 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) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to 

comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing 

terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order).

Accordingly, within 14 days the plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions, 

including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court’s order

or to file the motion for default judgment as previously ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01429-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 2