From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Cano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
CASE NO. CV F 11-0674 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. CV F 11-0674 LJO SKO

01-17-2013

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MANUEL CANO CANO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO STRIKE ANSWER


(Doc. 27.)

This Court's January 8, 2013 order ("January 8 order") required defendants Manuel Cano Cano and Miriam A. Rojo de Cano (collectively "defendants"), no later than January 15, 2013, to file and serve papers to show cause why this Court should not impose on them sanctions, including striking their answer, for disobedience of this Court's orders and Local Rules and for failure to defend meaningfully this action. Defendants failed to respond to the January 8 order.

This Court's Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with an order of this 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." "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions, including where appropriate, default or dismissal." Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

This case is similar to Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1989), where the defendants failed to attend a pretrial conference or to further participate in the litigation after withdrawal of their counsel. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the trial court was authorized to order entry of default judgment against the defendants. Ringgold, 880 F.2d at 1141 (citing Brock v. Unique Racquetball & Health Clubs, Inc., 786 F.2d 61, 64 (2nd Cir. 1986)) (A"trial judge, responsible for the orderly and expeditious conduct of litigation, must have broad latitude to impose the sanction of default for non-attendance occurring after a trial has begun.").)

Rather than entering default judgment, this Court prefers the less drastic measure to strike defendants' answer, after which plaintiff may pursue default entry and judgment. On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. STRIKES defendants' answer for their disobedience of this Court's orders and failure to defend this action;
2. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than February 11, 2013, to file papers to resolve this action and including default entry and judgment papers or a dismissal of this action; and
3. DIRECTS the clerk to serve a copy of this order on defendants Manuel Cano Cano and Miriam A. Rojo de Cano at 67400 Polk Street, Thermal, CA 92274 and 81315 Fuchsia Ave., Indio, CA 92201.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Cano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
CASE NO. CV F 11-0674 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)
Case details for

J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Cano

Case Details

Full title:J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MANUEL CANO CANO, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. CV F 11-0674 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)