Moose Run, LLC v. Libric
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-01879
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Moose Run v. Libric, Judge Chesney denied Libric’s request to consider a reply about extending his deadline to answer the complaint.
Renato Libric, who was incarcerated and represented himself, was affected by the denial of his request to have the court consider his reply. The order also addressed the briefing process concerning his deadline to respond to Moose Run, LLC’s complaint.
What happened
In Moose Run, LLC v. Libric, Renato Libric asked for more time to respond to Moose Run’s complaint. The court had previously extended his deadline in part, setting September 20, 2019, as the new deadline.
Libric later asked the court to consider a reply supporting his request. He said he had mailed the reply, but it was returned because of insufficient postage. The reply also discussed evidence he or a future attorney might need, although the court had explained that no evidence was required with an answer to the complaint.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the request. She ruled that the district’s local rules do not allow a reply to an extension request unless the court asks for additional briefing. She also stated that, even if she considered the reply, Libric had not shown why he could not respond by September 20.
The detailed version
- Moose Run, LLC v. Libric · No. 3:19-cv-01879
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
Defendant Renato Libric, who was incarcerated and represented himself, requested an extension of time to respond to Moose Run, LLC’s complaint. He sought an extension until October 16, 2019. Moose Run opposed the request. In an earlier order, the court granted the extension request in part and extended the deadline to September 20, 2019.
Libric then submitted a document titled “Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to an Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint.” He also sent a letter asking the court to take the reply into consideration. Libric said he had mailed the reply on August 14, 2019, but it had been returned because of insufficient postage. The reply and the original extension request discussed evidence that Libric, or an attorney he intended to retain, would need to obtain. The court noted that no evidence was required in connection with an answer to the complaint.
Court’s ruling
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied Libric’s request for consideration of the reply. The court relied on Civil Local Rule 6-3, which provides that an opposition to a request for an extension must be filed within four days after receiving the request, after which the court rules on the matter. The court explained that, unless it requests additional briefing, a reply is not allowed.
The court added that, even if it considered the reply, Libric had not shown why he could not file a response to the complaint by September 20, 2019. The order denied only the request to consider the reply; the opinion does not decide the merits of Moose Run’s complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.