Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01363/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01363-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 September 4, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that the parties were able to achieve a 

compromise, settling this matter. (Doc. 22) Therefore, the Court ordered the parties to file a 

stipulation for dismissal of the matter “no later than October 2, 2015.” (Doc. 23) To date, the parties 

have not filed a stipulation. 

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. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 

DENISE SAILES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MULTI-CHEM GROUP, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01363 JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-01363-JLT Document 24 Filed 10/05/15 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

requiring amendment of complaint); 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 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to prosecute and failure comply with the 

Court’s order, or in the alternative, to file the proposed class notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01363-JLT Document 24 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2