Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05810/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL THOMAS TOLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL GOSPODARCZYK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05810-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

MOTION SHOULD NOT BE

GRANTED

Re: Dkt. No. 4

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.

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 

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 

defendant’s motion to dismiss as a concession that the claim at issue should be dismissed).

Because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants’ motion within the mandated period of 14

days, the Court may, in its discretion, grant Defendants’ motion. See Marziano, 2010 WL 

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 Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/14/2019 _____________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05810-HSG Document 7 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 1