Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00560/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

William D. Howell; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GMAC Corporation, etc; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-00560-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On March 8, 2006, this Court entered an order that Plaintiffs shall either consent

to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge on or before 

March 24, 2006. Plaintiffs have failed to timely comply with the Court's order.

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq.,

mandates the early and on-going judicial management of the pretrial process. Under the

CJRA mandate, "[f]ederal trial courts are now required, by statute, to implement techniques

and strategies designed to dispose of cases in an efficient and inexpensive manner." See,

Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142 F.R.D. 420, 423

(D.Del.1992). Additionally, federal judges "are subject to the injunction of Rule 1 [Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure] that [they] 'be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive

determination of every action.'" Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1649,

60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s prior order is

frustrating the early management of this case.

Case 2:06-cv-00560-JAT Document 8 Filed 03/30/06 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 -

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P., and Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir. 1992)(trial courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal

of a case), 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs, and each of them, show cause in writing on or

before April 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. why sanctions including the possible dismissal without

prejudice of this lawsuit should not be imposed for failing to comply with the Court’s prior

order. If Plaintiffs comply with the Court’s March 8, 2006 order before April 17, 2006 by

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

district judge, no sanctions will be imposed.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00560-JAT Document 8 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2