1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ESTATE OF JACOB APODACA, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00171-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW

CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS

13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO FILE

DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS BY COURT

14 COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., ORDERED DEADLINE

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 29)

16 DEADLINE: JANUARY 12, 2024 17 18 On November 6, 2023, this matter was settled at a settlement conference and dispositional 19 documents were to be filed withing sixty (60) days. (ECF No. 29.) 20 The deadline has now expired and the parties did not file dispositional documents, nor 21 request an extension of time from the Court. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or 22 of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 23 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” The 24 Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose 25 sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 26 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court shall require the parties to show cause why 27 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with the 28 deadline set by the Court at the settlement conference. (ECF No. 29.) 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than January 12, 2024, why 3 sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents the 4 deadline to do so; and 5 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA (e_ g | Dated: _January 8, 2024 __ ef 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28