Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00170/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

CARLA ROUNDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00170-AWI-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO 

APPEAR FOR MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

Carla Rounds (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Board of Trustees of the California 

State University in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Stanislaus on 

December 16, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2020, Defendant removed the action to the 

Eastern District of California. (Id.) On this same date, the order setting the mandatory 

scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 2.) 

Pursuant to the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, a joint scheduling 

report was to be filed seven days prior and all parties were to attend the scheduling conference 

on April 17, 2020. (Id. at 2.) The order also informed the parties that “[s]hould counsel or a 

party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, or fail to 

comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and 

contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate 

Case 1:20-cv-00170-DAD-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/17/20 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

judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in original).)

The parties filed their joint scheduling report on April 10, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) The 

mandatory scheduling conference was held on April 17, 2020. Counsel Jennifer Perkell and 

Brandon Fields appeared telephonically for Defendant. Plaintiff did not appear for the 

conference. Finding that Plaintiff waived her appearance by the failure to appear, as provided in 

the scheduling order, an ex parte conference was conducted and a scheduling order shall issue. 

Plaintiff shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for Plaintiff’s failure to 

appear at the mandatory scheduling conference. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 

Rules or 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.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE in writing 

within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for her

failure to comply with the January 31, 2020 order requiring her appearance at the mandatory 

scheduling conference. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in 

the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00170-DAD-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 2