Opinion
No. CIV S-09-3461 EFB
10-17-2011
KIMBERLY MADKINS, as guardian ad litem for M.A., a minor, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal corporation; BLAIR ULRING, in his official capacity; Police Officers JOHN SNYDER, BEN CROMWELL, and ROBERT DU BOIS, in their individual and official capacities, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This action was referred to the undersigned under Eastern District of California Local Rule 305 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), pursuant to the consent of the parties. Dckt. No. 17. On December 8, 2010, pursuant to the parties' request, the court continued the final pretrial conference in this action to October 26, 2011. Dckt. No. 21; see also Dckt. No. 23.
This court's Rule 16 scheduling order provides that "[n]otwithstanding Local Rule 281, the parties shall submit a joint pretrial statement not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the pretrial conference. The joint pretrial statement shall conform with the requirements of Local Rule 281(b)." See Dckt. No. 19 at 5. Accordingly, a joint pretrial statement was due on October 12, 2011. However, the docket reveals that no such statement has been filed. Therefore, the undersigned will continue the final pretrial conference and will order the parties to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to file a joint pretrial statement as ordered. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the 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."); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The final pretrial conference currently scheduled for October 26, 2011, is rescheduled for November 30, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.
2. The parties shall show cause, in writing, on or before November 16, 2011, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a joint pretrial statement in compliance with the court's Rule 16 scheduling order.
3. Also by November 16, 2011, the parties shall file a joint pretrial statement in conformance with Local Rule 281(b).
4. Failure of the parties to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with this court's orders and Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. In the interim, if the parties conclude that a settlement conference would likely resolve the case, they may contact the clerk to request that one be scheduled.
SO ORDERED.
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE