ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case, in which defendants are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dckt. No 14. On February 15, 2012, the undersigned issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for June 27, 2012 and directing the parties to file a status report within fourteen days of the scheduled conference (or by June 13, 2012). Dckt. No. 15.
On June 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a status report in accordance with the February 15 order; however, no such status report was filed by defendants. Therefore, on June 21, 2012, the status conference was continued to August 22, 2012 and defendants were ordered to file a status report and to show cause, on or before August 1, 2012, why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to comply with the February 15 order. Dckt. No. 18 (citing E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.");L.R. 183 ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules."); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.")). Defendants were admonished that failure to do so "may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that their answers be stricken and that they be held in default." Dckt. No. 18 at 2.
The deadline has passed and defendants have not filed a response to the June 21, 2012 order to show cause and have not filed a status report as ordered on February 15, 2012 and June 21, 2012.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference currently set for August 22, 2012 before the undersigned is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants' answers, Dckt. Nos. 10 and 12, be stricken due to defendants' failure to comply with this court's February 15, 2012 and June 21, 2012 orders and this court's Local Rules; and
2. The Clerk be directed to enter default against defendants Raj K. Sidher, individually and d/b/a Meadows Video, and Kiran Sidher, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...