Haley

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,…