Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

NISHI DAYAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00039-JLT-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

(Docs. 5, 12)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

MEET/CONFER AND FILE JOINT 

REPORT

THREE (3)-DAY DEADLINE

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff Nishi Dayal (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing 

of a complaint against Defendants County of Kern, Kern County District Attorney’s Office, 

Cynthia Zimmer, Andrea Kohler, Gina Pearl, and Kenneth Russell (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). On 

January 9, 2024, the Court issued civil new case documents and set an initial scheduling 

conference for April 8, 2024, at 9:00 AM. (Doc. 5). On April 2, 2024, after the parties failed to 

timely file a joint scheduling report, and with none of the Defendants having appeared or 

answered, the Court reset the scheduling conference to May 20, 2024. (Doc. 12). The parties 

filed a timely joint scheduling report on May 13, 2024. (Doc. 15). 

On May 20, 2024, the Court convened for the scheduling conference via Zoom. (Doc. 17). 

Case 1:24-cv-00039-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 05/20/24 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

Amber Derham appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. No counsel appeared for Defendants. Counsel 

for Defendants has made no filing or otherwise communicated with chambers of the undersigned 

regarding his failure to appear for the 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).

Given their failure to appear or otherwise set forth any cause for their absence from the 

scheduling conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Defendants shall show cause in writing

within three (3) days of entry of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure 

to timely appear at the scheduling conference.

And IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within three (3) days of entry of this order, Defendants

shall meet and confer with Plaintiff and file a joint report identifying dates of mutual availability 

to appear for a re-set scheduling conference.

Failure to timely comply with this order to show cause will result in the imposition of 

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00039-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 2