Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01062/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01062-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

DAVID ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01062-SKO

ORDER VACATING SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

TEN DAY DEADLINE

A settlement conference in this action is set for November 15, 2016, at 10:15 a.m. before 

the undersigned. (ECF No. 39.) Pursuant to the order setting the settlement conference, the 

parties were required to submit a confidential settlement statement to the Court one week prior to 

the conference date. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court has timely received the confidential statement from 

Defendants, however no statement has been received from Plaintiff. This Court spends 

considerable time preparing for settlement conference so as to make it meaningful to the parties 

and results in a greater likelihood of settlement success. Settlement is extremely important in 

this district where the judges have one of the highest caseloads per judge in the United States. 

The settlement conference statement assists the Court in adequately preparing for these matters. 

They are not pro forma. 

Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order requiring the confidential settlement 

Case 1:14-cv-01062-SKO Document 42 Filed 11/09/16 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

statement to be submitted to the Court, the November 15, 2016 settlement conference shall be 

vacated. Should the parties desire another settlement conference date, they shall confer and 

contact the courtroom deputy with available dates. However, no settlement conference shall be 

set until Plaintiff submits a meaningful confidential settlement statement to the Court. 

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).

Plaintiff is required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to 

submit his confidential statement in compliance with the October 16, 2015 scheduling order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The settlement conference set for November 15, 2016, is VACATED; 

2. The Court will re-set the settlement conference only upon the filing of a 

meaningful settlement conference statement by Plaintiff and at a time convenient 

to all parties and the Court; and

3. Within ten days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in 

writing why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the October 

16, 2015 scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01062-SKO Document 42 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2