Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00532/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00532-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

Maritza Villafana Reyes, Julian Anthony

Reyes,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Housing America Corporation, Jorge

Lozano, Laurie Gail Senko, Maria

Quezada, Patricia Utzman, Joyce Lucero,

Gary F. Hallford, Nathaniel Urquhart,

Manuel Figueroa, John Does I-V, Jane

Does I-V, Black and White Corporations

I-V,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0532-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

action on or about March 18, 2008. (docket #1) On March 25, 2008, the Court issued a Notice

of Assignment and Order, docket #15, ordering Plaintiffs to file on or before April 14 2008

their written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed

before a United States district judge. As of today’s date, the Plaintiffs have failed to file their

written elections to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a

United States district judge. 

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

Case 2:08-cv-00532-ROS Document 28 Filed 04/18/08 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 -

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). A dismissal for want of

prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Rule

41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his or her claim is

grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d at 524. The

courts have read this rule to require prosecution with “reasonable diligence” if a plaintiff is to

avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Because the period within which Plaintiffs were to file their written consents or

elections has passed, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause in writing on or before May 1,

2008 why their Complaint against Defendants Housing America Corporation, Jorge Lozano,

Laurie Gail Senko, Maria Quezada, Patricia Utzman, Joyce Lucero, Gary F. Hallford, Nathaniel

Urquhart and Manuel Figueroa, should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders

and failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiffs may discharge this

OSC by complying with the Court’s March 25, 2008 Order on or before May 1, 2008.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause in writing on or before May 1,

2008 why Plaintiffs or their counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to timely comply with

court orders. Plaintiffs or their counsel may discharge this Order to Show Cause by either

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

judge before May 1, 2008.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00532-ROS Document 28 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 2