Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01137/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01137-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rory Chavez
Plaintiff
Kern High School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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 October 14, 2019, Plaintiff reported the parties “reached a tentative settlement in the abovecaptioned matter, subject to consideration and final approval by Defendant Kern High School District’s 

Board of Trustees.” (Doc. 9 at 2) Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation to 

dismiss the action no later than January 13, 2020. (Doc. 10 at 1) The Court advised the parties that 

their failure to comply with the order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of 

the action. (Id.) However, the parties failed to comply with or otherwise respond to 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 

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose terminating sanctions, based on a party’s failure to prosecute it

RORY CHAVEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1137 LJO JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:19-cv-01137-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/15/20 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

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) (terminating sanctions 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 why terminating and/or 

monetary sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order or to file a 

stipulated request for dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01137-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2