Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00711-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

On July 18, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to “file a notification indicating whether they 

intend to represent themselves going forward or whether they will retain a new attorney” no later than 

July 29, 2016. (Doc. 14 at 3) The Court instructed Plaintiffs that if they intended to hire an attorney, 

Plaintiffs must notify the Court regarding when that would occur. (Id.) To date, Plaintiffs have not 

responded to the Court’s order.

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 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. 

CRAIG TANNER and GINA TANNER,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL 

CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0711-JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/03/16 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

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal 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, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order or, 

in the alternative, to file a notification indicating whether they intends to represent themselves or will 

be hiring counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00711-LJO-JLT Document 18 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2