Pringle

Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 20201:19-cv-00468California736 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. Discussion

26 27 1 The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes, including trial 28 and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 18.) 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 2 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 3 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 4 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 5 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 6 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 7 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 8 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 9 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 10 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.