Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The case is Iain Curtis-Shanley v. Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science, No. CV 26-05814-KK-ACCVx, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The October 15, 2026 civil minutes identify District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato as presiding and describe in-chambers proceedings; no attorneys were present for either plaintiff or defendant. The supplied document does not describe the underlying claims, so this report addresses only the scheduling dispute and the court's stated procedural response.
On September 9, 2026, the court set a scheduling conference for October 22, 2026 and directed the parties to file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report no later than fourteen days before that conference. The earlier order expressly warned that failure to comply with its requirements or to cooperate in preparing the report could lead to sanctions. According to the October 15 minutes, no joint report had been filed by then, and the court therefore found that the parties were in violation of the September 9 order.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not dismiss the action or impose sanctions in this order. Instead, acting on its own motion, it ordered the parties to show cause in writing no later than seven days from the order's date why the action should not be dismissed and/or sanctions imposed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders. The order thus gives both parties an opportunity to explain their failure to submit the joint report before the court selects any sanction.
As authority for possible dismissal, the court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which it described as permitting dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. It also stated that it has inherent power to impose sanctions for willful disobedience of a court order, citing Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012). The minutes do not find willful disobedience or decide that dismissal is warranted; they identify those measures as possibilities following the required response.
The order expressly warns that failure to file a timely response will result in dismissal without prejudice and/or other sanctions, including monetary sanctions, for failure to prosecute and compliance with court orders. That warning concerns nonresponse to the show-cause order; it is not a present dismissal, a monetary award, or a final determination on the merits. The document also does not reschedule or cancel the previously set October 22 scheduling conference, and it closes with 'IT IS SO ORDERED.'
Key Takeaways
- Both parties must submit a written explanation within seven days of October 15, 2026 addressing why dismissal and/or sanctions should not follow their failure to file the Joint Rule 26(f) Report.
- The court identified Rule 41(b) and its inherent sanctioning authority under Evon as the bases for the potential consequences, but it made no present finding of willful disobedience.
- The order states that a failure to respond timely will result in dismissal without prejudice and/or other sanctions, including possible monetary sanctions.
- No dismissal or sanction was imposed by this document, and the supplied minutes provide no ruling on the underlying merits of the case.
- The October 22, 2026 scheduling conference remains on the calendar because the order neither reschedules nor vacates it.
Why It Matters
The order is a procedural enforcement measure rather than a final adjudication. Its immediate practical effect is to place the burden on the parties to explain the missed filing and to create a short deadline before the court considers dismissal or sanctions. The distinction matters because the minutes describe possible future consequences, while the only relief actually ordered is the written show-cause response.
The document also illustrates the court's use of a scheduling order's express warning when addressing noncompliance. It ties the show-cause proceeding to the absent joint report and the September 9 directive, without making additional factual findings about why the report was not filed or assigning responsibility to one party rather than the other.