From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc.

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 3, 2011
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01284 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01284 LJO JLT

10-03-2011

MARIA GONZALEZ and GONZALO GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDER

Maria Gonzalez and Gonzalo Gonzalez ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint in Kern County Superior Court on July 13, 2011, alleging illegal truth and lending practices by Defendants, who removed the matter to this Court on August 1, 2011. (Doc. 1). On September 8, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiffs "to serve their Complaint on defendants Lennar Corporation and Lennar Homes of California and to file proofs of effective service of process of plaintiff's Complaint" no latter than September 23, 2011. (Doc. 12 at 2). To date, Plaintiffs have failed to comply 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." LR 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, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to prosecute and to follow the Court's Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc.

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 3, 2011
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01284 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARIA GONZALEZ and GONZALO GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE…

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

Date published: Oct 3, 2011

Citations

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01284 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2011)