Opinion
1:20-cv-00898-NONE-JLT
06-23-2021
JAMES SANCHO, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, New Jersey corporation, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS AND FAILURE TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 17, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the deadline to file the motion for class certification no later than February 25, 2021 and setting a hearing on the motion for June 17, 2021. (Doc. 10 at 1, 4-5.) Subsequently, on March 24, 2021, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for relief from the scheduling order. (Docs. 20, 23.) However, the plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders and has failed to file the motion for class certification.
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 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, including dismissal of 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 prosecute and 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, within 14 days the plaintiff SHALL show cause why the action as to the putative class should not be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.