Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The case is Angelique Kenney v. Doe Defendants 1-10, No. EDCV 25-02524-KK-DTBx, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The October 26, 2026 civil minutes identify District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato as present and record an in-chambers order to show cause concerning sanctions. No attorneys were present for either side, and the proceedings were not reported.
On January 14, 2026, the court directed the parties to complete mediation under its mandatory Court-Directed Alternative Dispute Resolution Program by October 15, 2026. The same order required a joint report on the progress of settlement discussions no later than seven days after the mediation proceedings. The court calculated October 22, 2026 as the deadline for the report addressing the mediation's outcome.
The minutes state that the court had not received the joint status report as of the order. On that basis, the court found the parties to be in violation of its January 14 order. The order does not identify which party was responsible for the omission, describe the underlying claims against the Doe defendants, or determine whether the mediation itself occurred.
The Court’s Holding
The court invoked its 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). It did not impose sanctions or find that the violation was willful. Instead, it decided to give the parties an opportunity to explain their failure to file the joint status report required by the January 14 order.
Acting on its own motion, the court ordered the parties to show cause in writing, no later than seven days from the date of the order, why sanctions should not be imposed. The required response therefore concerns the missing report and the possible sanctions, rather than the merits of Kenney's claims or the identities or liability of the Doe defendants.
The court separately warned Plaintiff that failure to file a timely response to the show-cause order would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. It cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in connection with that warning. The minutes conclude with "IT IS SO ORDERED," but they do not themselves dismiss the action, select a sanction, or excuse the missing report.
Key Takeaways
- The court found that the required post-mediation joint status report had not been filed by the calculated October 22, 2026 deadline.
- Both parties must submit written explanations within seven days showing why sanctions should not be imposed for the reporting failure.
- The order recognizes the court's inherent sanctioning authority but does not yet impose sanctions or make a willfulness finding.
- Kenney received an express warning that failing to respond on time would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
- The disposition is a show-cause order with a conditional dismissal warning, not a merits ruling or an immediate dismissal.
Why It Matters
The order makes timely compliance with the court's ADR reporting requirements an immediate procedural priority. A mediation deadline alone did not satisfy the January 14 directive: the parties also had to provide a joint report after the proceedings. The court treated the absent report as a violation and required an explanation before deciding whether sanctions were appropriate.
The warning to Kenney is more specific than the general sanctions directive. If she does not timely respond, the order says the action will be dismissed without prejudice under the failure-to-prosecute and compliance rationale associated with Rule 41(b). Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the warning does not itself adjudicate the claims or announce a permanent merits bar. The order leaves the content of the parties' explanations, any later sanctions decision, and the action's continued prosecution for subsequent proceedings.