Toler v. Gospodarczyk

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JOEL THOMAS TOLER, Case No. 19-cv-05810-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION SHOULD NOT BE ? v. GRANTED 10 PAUL GOSPODARCZYK, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 4 11 Defendants.

13 On October 25, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 4. To date, Plaintiff || has not filed his opposition, which was due by November 8, 2019.

3 15 In general, an opposition must be filed and served “not more than 14 days after the motion || was filed.” L.R. 7-3(a). The Court may interpret a failure to oppose a motion as a concession that 17 the motion should be granted. See GN Resound A/S v. Callpod, Inc., No. C 11-04673 SBA, 2013 || WL 1190651, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) (construing plaintiff's failure to oppose defendant’s || argument as a concession of said argument); see also Marziano v. Cty of Marin, No. C-10-2740 || EMC, 2010 WL 38955258, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010) (interpreting plaintiff's failure to oppose 21 defendant’s motion to dismiss as a concession that the claim at issue should be dismissed).

22 Because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants’ motion within the mandated period of 14 23 days, the Court may, in its discretion, grant Defendants’ motion. See Marziano, 2010 WL 24 || 38955258, at *4. The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by November 21, 2019 why || Defendants’ motion should not be granted in light of Plaintiffs failure to oppose the motion.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 || Dated: 11/14/2019 Abeuprerd 3 Abe | HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge