Opinion
For Lottie Coles, Plaintiff: Bill LaTour, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bill LaTour Law Offices, Colton, CA.
For Carolyn W Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant: Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-CV, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil Division, Los Angeles, CA; Assistant U.S. Attorney LA-SSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., San Francisco, CA; Tina R Saladino, Office of U.S. Attorney, Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA.
Present: The Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders
Kenly Kiya Kato, J.
I .
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 21, 2014, Plaintiff Lottie Coles lodged a complaint challenging the denial of her applications for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. ECF No. 1-1.
On July 23, 2014, the Court issued a Case Management Order (" CMO") setting forth dates for, among other things, the preparation and filing of the parties' Joint Stipulation. ECF No. 2.
On December 22, 2014, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court continued the dates contained in the CMO. ECF No. 13. The Court, therefore, ordered the parties to file their Joint Stipulation on or before May 7, 2015. Id. As of this date, the parties have not filed their Joint Stipulation.
II .
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with prejudice for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with any court order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order regarding the timely filing of the Joint Stipulation in this matter. Thus, having failed to comply with the Court's CMO, the Court may properly dismiss the instant action under Rule 41(b). However, before dismissing this action, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to explain her failure to file the Joint Stipulation as directed by the CMO.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders. Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 25, 2015, to respond to this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will be deemed by the Court consent to the dismissal of this action with prejudice.