The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TIMOTHY WILLFORM, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00989-DAD-SAB
11
Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW
12 CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
v. BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR
13 AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
CITY OF CERES, et al.,
14 THREE-DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
15
16 A scheduling conference in this action was set for August 11, 2021 at 3:00 p.m., before
17 the undersigned. (ECF No. 24.) Counsel for Plaintiffs, J. Michael Brown, failed to appear at the
18 scheduling conference.
19 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
20 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
21 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
22 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
23 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
24 2000).
25 Plaintiffs shall be required to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure
26 by counsel to make any appearance at the scheduling conference held on August 11, 2021.
27 / / /
/ / /
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within three (3) days from the date of
2 | entry of this order, Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed
3 | for the failure of counsel to attend the mandatory scheduling conference.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee
6 | Dated: _ August 11, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28