Lopez v. Subaru of America Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 9 — EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 DAVID LOPEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01126-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $100 PER DAY 13 v. (Doc. 10) 14 SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., ORDER CONTINUING MARCH 14, 2025, MID15 Defendant. DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE TO MARCH 28, 2025, AT 9:30 AM — 16 — (Doc. 9) — 17 — 18 Background 19 Plaintiff David Lopez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 20 August 19, 2024, in the Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-24-102787. (Doc. 1). 21 Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the action to this Court on September 22 20, 2024. (Id.). On December 20, 2024, the Court entered the operative Scheduling Order setting 23 forth discovery dates and deadlines and directing the parties to appear for the mid-discovery status 24 conference on March 14, 2025, and to file a joint status report no later than one week in advance 25 (i.e., no later than March 7, 2025). (Doc. 9). 26 When the parties failed to comply with the Court’s order to timely file the joint status report, 27 on March 10, 2025, the Court entered an order noticing the parties as to their delinquency in making 28 the filing and directing Plaintiff to file the joint status report within two (2) days. (Doc. 10). 1 Plaintiff was forewarned that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this order may result 2 in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action.” (Id.). Plaintiff’s 3 deadline to file the joint status report has passed and Plaintiff has filed neither the report nor a 4 request for extension nor otherwise explained to the Court the grounds for his continuing 5 delinquency. 6 Governing Authority 7 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is to 8 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To effectuate 9 this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court orders or 10 that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). 11 Relevant here, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney fails to 12 obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. 13 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 14 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 15 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all 16 others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority 17 and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In order to 18 compel a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue daily sanctions until 19 compliance is obtained. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) 20 (discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the 21 defendant to do what he had refused to do.”). 22 Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of 23 counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 24 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent 25 power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these 26 Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate 27 Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, 28 after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate 1 | disciplinary action against the attorney.” E.D. Cal. L-R. 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the 2 | foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court 3 | before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” (Id.). 4 Discussion 5 Here, despite the Court’s operative Scheduling Order directing the parties to timely file the 6 | joint status report one week in advance of the mid-discovery status conference and the Court’s 7 | March 10, 2025, order directing Plaintiff to remedy the noncompliance, Plaintiff has failed to 8 || comply with the Court’s orders. See (Docs. 9, 10). Accordingly, the Court finds that monetary 9 | sanctions are appropriate to compel Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s orders. Therefore, to gain 10 | Plaintiff's compliance, a $100 sanction shall be imposed on Plaintiff commencing on the date of 11 | this order and shall continue to be imposed each day thereafter until Plaintiff files the joint status 12 | report. Plaintiff's filing of the joint status report on the date of this order will not relieve Plaintiff 13 | of the sanction imposed commencing on this date. Further, the daily deadline shall expire at the 14 | close of business each day at 5:00 p.m. 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff shall pay the Clerk of the 17 | Court $100 per day, beginning on the date of this order, until Plaintiff files the joint status report 18 | with this Court. 19 It is FURTHER ORDERED that the March 14, 2025, mid-discovery status conference 20 | (Doc. 9) is CONTINUED to March 28, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. 21 | ITIS SOORDERED. ** | Dated: _March 13, 2025 | Wr bo 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —