Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01162-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

At a conference with the parties on May 20, 2016, the Court was informed that Defendant 

Earnest Soest intended to dismiss the cross-complaint against Bravo Air Cargo. Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Defendant Ernest Soest to “file his notice of voluntary dismissal (or stipulation to dismiss)

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), as to cross-defendant Bravo Air Cargo no later than June 3, 2016.” (Doc. 64 

at 1, emphasis in original) To date, Mr. Soest has not complied.

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 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss claims with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an 

JOHN SHARP, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ERNEST DEAN SOEST, et al., 

Defendants.

AND RELATED ACTIONS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-1162-JLT

ORDER TO DEFENDANT ERNEST SOEST TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CROSS-CLAIMS 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-01162-JLT Document 65 Filed 06/08/16 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

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 of a complaint for failure to prosecute and 

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, Ernest Dean Soest is ORDERED to show cause within 14 why the claims 

against Bravo Air Cargo should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order or, in the 

alternative, to file a notice of voluntary dismissal or stipulation to dismiss under Rule 41 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01162-JLT Document 65 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2