Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 20-1383-JFW(KESx) Date: January 6, 2026

Title: Ahmed Al Bakry -v- Al H. Zadeh, et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

None DEFENDANTS:

None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS

On May 27, 2025, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling and Case Management Order

(“Amended CMO”). The Amended CMO set January 5, 2026, as the deadline for the parties to file

the proposed Pretrial Conference Order, the Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, the

Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation, the Summary of Witness Testimony and Time Estimates, and the

Status Report Re: Settlement, Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms (the “Pretrial Documents”). In

addition, paragraph 3 of the Court’s Amended Standing Order (Docket No. 174), requires that “[a]ll

documents that are required to be filed in an electronic format pursuant to the Local Rules shall be

filed electronically no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date due unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”

Despite Plaintiff’s counsel reminding defense counsel of the 4:00 p.m. deadline, Defendant failed

to provide Plaintiff with the necessary information in order to timely file all of the Pretrial

Documents. As a result, many of those documents were filed after the 4:00 p.m. deadline,

including Defendants’ Motion in Limine, which was not filed until January 6, 2026. See Docket

Nos. 197-203. In addition, although Plaintiff unilaterally filed the Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation,

Defendants never filed a Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation, either jointly (as required) or unilaterally.

The Ninth Circuit has explained the importance of complying with a district court’s CMO:

A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” The district court’s decision to honor

the terms of its binding scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural

technicalities over the merits of [plaintiff’s] case. Disregard of the order would

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of

the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner

Corp. v. Case Equipment Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.C. Me. 1985)). In addition, the Ninth Circuit

has explained that “[d]istrict 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 or strike a defendant’s answer and enter default against that defendant, based on a

party's failure to obey a court order. 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); Board of Trustees of Kern County Elec. Pension Fund v. Burgoni, 2011 WL 6002889

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011) (defendant’s answer stricken and default entered for failing to comply

with a court order).

Defense counsel is ordered to show cause, in writing, on or before January 8, 2026, why

sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00 should not be imposed and/or Defendants’ Answer stricken

and default entered for failure to comply with the Amended CMO and the Amended Standing

Order.

No oral argument on this matter will be heard unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of the response

to the Order to Show Cause. Failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause will result in the

imposition of sanctions and/or the striking of Defendants’ Answer and the entry of default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.