From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cobert v. County of Kern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 13, 2015
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT

05-13-2015

BRENNAN COBERT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al. Defendants.


ORDER TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

On March 6, 2015, Shawn Khorrami filed a "Designation of Counsel for Service" on behalf of Plaintiff. (Doc. 21.) On March 10, 2015, the Court issued an order noting that the document appeared to be intended as a substitution of attorney. (Doc. 22.) Because a designation of counsel is not the appropriate avenue to substitute counsel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to "file a Substitution of Attorney (containing the appropriate signatures) and Proposed Order within fourteen (14) days." (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with 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 sanctions 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) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel—including Hermez Moreno, Brian Bush, and Shawn Khorrami — are ORDERED to show cause in writing within seven days why sanctions should not be imposed for failure comply the Court's Order or, in the alternative, to file a Substitution of Attorney. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cobert v. County of Kern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 13, 2015
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Cobert v. County of Kern

Case Details

Full title:BRENNAN COBERT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 13, 2015

Citations

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)