Toler v. Gospodarczyk
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-05810
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Toler v. Gospodarczyk, Judge Gilliam ordered Toler to explain by November 21 why the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted.
Joel Thomas Toler and the defendants, including Paul Gospodarczyk.
What happened
In Toler v. Gospodarczyk, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 25, 2019. Toler had not filed an opposition by the November 8 deadline.
The court explained that a response generally must be filed within 14 days after a motion, and that failing to respond may be treated as conceding that the motion should be granted.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Toler to explain by November 21 why the motion should not be granted. The opinion did not decide the motion itself.
The detailed version
- Toler v. Gospodarczyk · No. 4:19-cv-05810
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 25, 2019. Toler’s opposition was due on November 8, 2019, but he had not filed it by the time of the order.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that Northern District of California Local Rule 7-3(a) generally requires an opposition to be filed and served no more than 14 days after the motion is filed. The court also explained that it may treat a party’s failure to oppose a motion as a concession that the motion should be granted.
Order
The court ordered Toler to show cause—meaning to explain—by November 21, 2019, why the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted because he failed to oppose it. The opinion did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.