From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Integon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Dauster

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT

03-19-2020

INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAUSTER., et al., Defendants.


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

Plaintiff initiated this action for interpretation of a homeowner's insurance policy it issued to Michael Dauster, seeking a judicial declaration that Integon has no duty under the policy to defend or indemnify related to a swimming pool accident. The Clerk of Court entered default against the defendants remaining in this action, Michael Dauster and Megan Blackmon. (Docs. 14, 15) Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to "seek default judgment as to the two remaining defendants" no later than March 13, 2020. (Doc. 25) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for default judgment or taken any other action to prosecute its claims against the remaining defendants.

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) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order).

Accordingly, within 14 days the plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions, including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for the failure comply with the Court's order or to file the motion for default judgment as previously ordered. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19 , 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Integon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Dauster

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Integon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Dauster

Case Details

Full title:INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAUSTER., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01429-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)