La

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY LA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01544-KES-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT

v. BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

AT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, et al., TWO-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

17 A scheduling conference in this action was set for March 27, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., before 18 the undersigned. (ECF No. 16.) No counsel for Plaintiff appeared at the 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 Plaintiff shall be required to show cause why sanctions…