1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ELENA KOKHANOVSKI, Case No. 1:23-cv-01128-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS

13 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR

FAILURE TO FILE JOINT STATUS

14 RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et REPORT al., 15 (Doc. 7) Defendants. 16 TWO DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On October 10, 2023, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to refer Plaintiff’s 19 claims to binding arbitration and to stay the action pending completion of arbitration. (Doc. 7). 20 In its order, the Court directed the parties to file a “joint” notice every 90 days updating the Court 21 on the status of the action. Id. at 2. 22 Although the parties were delinquent in filing their first joint 90-day report (see Doc. 10), 23 the parties thereafter timely filed their next two joint reports (see Docs. 13, 14). However, on 24 September 24, 2024, instead of filing a jointly executed 90-day report, Plaintiff filed a report 25 executed only by counsel for Plaintiff in which she represented that the report, in fact, was filed 26 on behalf of both Plaintiff and Defendant. (Doc. 15 at 1). On October 3, 2024, Defendant filed 27 a status report in which counsel for Defendant characterizes counsel for Plaintiff’s representation 1 at 2n.1). 2 It should go without saying that a “joint” status report requires meet/confer efforts among 3 | the parties and a single filing executed by both parties. The Court takes this opportunity to clarify 4 intent and expectation that the parties comply with the Court’s order by filing a single, jointly 5 executed status report every 90 days. 6 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 7 |or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 8 | sanctions ... within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the Court has the inherent power 9 | to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 10 |including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 11 2000). 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within two (2) days of entry of 13 | this Order, the parties shall show cause in writing why they should not be sanctioned for failing 14 | to timely comply with the Court’s order to file the now-overdue 90-day joint status report. In the 15 | alternative, the parties may comply with this Order by filing the required October 2024 joint status 16 report by that same deadline. 17 Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions, up 18 | to and including financial sanctions and dismissal of the action. Further, any future failures 19 | by the parties to timely file a joint (e.g., a single, jointly executed) status report in compliance 20 | with the Court’s order will result in the imposition of sanctions. 21 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 4, 2024 | Wr Pr 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28