Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORMY COX, Case No. 1:24-cv-00878-KES-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD

v. NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO

APPEAR AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

CITY OF PORTERVILLE,

Defendant. THREE DAY DEADLINE

16 A scheduling conference in this action was set for February 18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., before the undersigned. (ECF No. 8.) No counsel for Defendant appeared at the scheduling conference. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure 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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Defendant shall be required to show cause…