Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

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

The Court has granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in this action, and approved 

the class notice plan proposed by the parties. However, the Court instructed the parties to make 

revisions to the proposed Class Notice to incorporate information such as the identification of the 

Claims Administrator and the deadlines for filing changes to the Benefit Forms, returning Exclusion 

Forms, or filing any opposition to the Settlement. (Doc. 268 at 17.) Therefore, the Court ordered the 

parties to “file a finalized Notice Packet with the required revisions for the Court’s approval no later 

than March 6, 2015.” (Id. at 19, emphasis in original.) To date, the parties have not complied with 

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 

SANTIAGO ROJAS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MARKO ZANINOVICH, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00705-AWI -JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 270 Filed 03/10/15 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

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. 

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

of this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order, 

or in the alternative, file a revised Notice Packet as previously ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 270 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2