Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.

N.D. California

Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 16, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-07542

StatusUnknown

This text of Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc. (Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAWRENCE HALEY, Case No. 18-cv-07542-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION SHOULD NOT BE 9 v. GRANTED

10 CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP- Re: Dkt. No. 23 CALIFORNIA, INC., 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 On May 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion requesting that the Court modify its 15 scheduling order to provide that trial will be a bench rather than a jury trial. Dkt. No. 23. To date, 16 Plaintiff has not filed his opposition, although he has been actively participating in the case. 17 In general, an opposition must be filed and served “not more than 14 days after the motion 18 was filed.” L.R. 7-3(a). The Court may interpret a failure to oppose a motion as a concession that 19 the motion should be granted. See GN Resound A/S v. Callpod, Inc., No. C 11-04673 SBA, 2013 20 WL 1190651, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) (construing plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendant’s 21 argument as a concession of said argument); see also Marziano v. Cty of Marin, No. C-10-2740 22 EMC, 2010 WL 38955258, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010) (interpreting plaintiff’s failure to oppose 23 defendant’s motion to dismiss as a concession that the claim at issue should be dismissed). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s motion within the mandated period of 14 2 || days, the Court may, in its discretion, grant Defendant’s motion. See Marziano, 2010 WL 3 38955258, at *4. The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by September 20, 2019 why 4 || Defendant’s motion should not be granted in light of Plaintiffs failure to oppose the motion. 5 6 IT ISSO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: 9/16/2019

GoD S. GILLIAM, JR. / 2 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAWRENCE HALEY, Case No. 18-cv-07542-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION SHOULD NOT BE 9 v. GRANTED

10 CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP- Re: Dkt. No. 23 CALIFORNIA, INC., 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 On May 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion requesting that the Court modify its 15 scheduling order to provide that trial will be a bench rather than a jury trial. Dkt. No. 23. To date, 16 Plaintiff has not filed his opposition, although he has been actively participating in the case. 17 In general, an opposition must be filed and served “not more than 14 days after the motion 18 was filed.” L.R. 7-3(a). The Court may interpret a failure to oppose a motion as a concession that 19 the motion should be granted. See GN Resound A/S v. Callpod, Inc., No. C 11-04673 SBA, 2013 20 WL 1190651, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) (construing plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendant’s 21 argument as a concession of said argument); see also Marziano v. Cty of Marin, No. C-10-2740 22 EMC, 2010 WL 38955258, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010) (interpreting plaintiff’s failure to oppose 23 defendant’s motion to dismiss as a concession that the claim at issue should be dismissed). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s motion within the mandated period of 14 2 || days, the Court may, in its discretion, grant Defendant’s motion. See Marziano, 2010 WL 3 38955258, at *4. The Court thus ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by September 20, 2019 why 4 || Defendant’s motion should not be granted in light of Plaintiffs failure to oppose the motion. 5 6 IT ISSO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: 9/16/2019

GoD S. GILLIAM, JR. / 2 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haley-v-clark-construction-group-california-inc-cand-2019.