From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garl

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
Case No.: 1:12-cv-00672- LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00672- LJO-JLT

05-01-2013

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. KLARKE ANTHONY GARL, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S

ORDER

On September 18, 2012, the Clerk entered default against defendant Klarke Anthony Garl pursuant to a request made by Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). (Docs. 7-8). On September 19, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment within sixty days. (Doc. 9). Accordingly, Plaintiff was to file a motion for default judgment no later than November 19, 2012. To date, Plaintiff has failed to do so.

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 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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure comply with the Court's order, or in the alternative, to file a motion for default judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garl

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2013
Case No.: 1:12-cv-00672- LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)
Case details for

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Garl

Case Details

Full title:JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. KLARKE ANTHONY GARL, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00672- LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)