Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01534/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

JOHNNY ALDANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01534-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

SANCTIONS OF $100 PER DAY 

(Docs. 3, 6-7)

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Johnny Aldana (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing 

of a complaint against Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of the State of 

California, County of Kern. (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on October 27, 

2023. Id. That same day, the Court issued case management documents ordering the parties to file 

consent/decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction forms within 14 days from the date the action 

was removed from state court. (Doc. 3-1). On November 9, 2023, Defendant filed a 

consent/decline form. (Doc. 4). 

On January 18, 2024, the Court reminded Plaintiff of his responsibility to file a 

consent/decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction form and directed him to file the form no later 

than January 23, 2024. (Doc. 6). When Plaintiff did not timely comply with that order, on January 

24, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff within two days either to (1) show cause in writing why 

sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to timely comply with the Court’s order, or (2) file 

Case 1:23-cv-01534-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 3
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

the required consent/decline form. (Doc. 7). The deadline has passed and Plaintiff has made no 

filing either responsive to the Court’s show cause order or otherwise explaining his deficiency or 

seeking other relief. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is to 

secure the “just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To 

effectuate this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court 

orders or that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(b). Relevant here, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney 

fails to obey an order. 

The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 

so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 

U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all 

others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority 

and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In order to 

compel a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue daily sanctions until 

compliance is obtained. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the 

defendant to do what he had refused to do.”). 

Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent 

power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these 

Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate 

Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, 

after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate 

disciplinary action against the attorney.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the 

foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court 

before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” Id.

Case 1:23-cv-01534-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s repeated failure to respond to the 

Court’s orders regarding the filing of a consent/decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction form

warrants a monetary sanction to compel Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s orders. Therefore, to 

gain Plaintiff’s compliance, a $100.00 sanction shall be imposed on Plaintiff commencing on the 

date of this order and shall continue to be imposed each day thereafter until Plaintiff said form. 

Any response by Plaintiff on the date of this Order will not relieve Plaintiff of the sanction imposed 

commencing on this date. Further, the daily deadline shall expire at the close of business each day 

at 5:00 p.m.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall pay the Clerk of the 

Court $100 per day, beginning on the date of this order, until he complies with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01534-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/30/24 Page 3 of 3