Bonner v. Covidien, LP.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-05841
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Bonner v. Covidien, Judge Gilliam ordered Bonner to explain why Covidien’s motion to dismiss should not be granted.
Lorraine Bonner and the defendants, including Covidien, LP.
What happened
In Bonner v. Covidien, LP., Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court extended the schedule for responding to it.
Bonner’s opposition was due November 19, 2019, but she had not filed it by the time of the order. The court said it may treat a failure to oppose a motion as agreement that the motion should be granted.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Bonner to show cause by November 27, 2019, explaining why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. The order did not itself grant or deny the motion.
The detailed version
- Bonner v. Covidien, LP. · No. 4:19-cv-05841
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 22, 2019. The parties later agreed to extend the briefing schedule, and the court granted that request. Under the revised schedule, Plaintiff’s opposition was due November 19, 2019.
Order
Plaintiff had not filed an opposition by the date of this order. The court explained that it may interpret a party’s failure to oppose a motion as a concession that the motion should be granted. It therefore stated that it could, in its discretion, grant Defendants’ motion based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond.
The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by November 27, 2019, explaining why Defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted. This order did not itself 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.