Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2019

Moose Run, LLC v. Libric

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:19-cv-01879
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Moose Run, LLC v. Libric, Judge Chesney denied an extension as moot, granted leave to amend, and set deadlines for a planned summary-judgment motion.

Who this affects

Defendant Renato Libric received permission to amend his answer and counterclaim, while Moose Run, LLC received a schedule for its planned summary-judgment motion and was temporarily excused from responding to the existing counterclaim.

What happened

Moose Run, LLC v. Libric concerned defendant Renato Libric’s request for more time to respond to the complaint or permission to file a more detailed response. Libric was incarcerated and representing himself.

The court found that Libric’s existing filing was a sufficient response and treated it as the operative answer and counterclaim. It denied as moot the request for more time, granted the request to amend, and set November 20, 2019, as the deadline for an amended answer and counterclaim. The court also temporarily excused Moose Run from responding to the existing counterclaim and set deadlines for Moose Run’s planned summary-judgment motion and Libric’s response.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued the order on October 16, 2019. The order set deadlines and addressed the pleadings; it did not decide the planned summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Moose Run, LLC v. Libric · No. 3:19-cv-01879
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Oct. 16, 2019

Background

Defendant Renato Libric submitted an application seeking either an extension until November 20, 2019, to respond to Moose Run, LLC’s complaint or permission to amend the response attached to his application. The attached filing, titled “Reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint,” included an answer and a counterclaim. Because Libric was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, the court treated the application as filed on September 19, 2019, the date he gave it to prison officials for mailing.

Rulings on the Application

The court found that Libric’s existing filing was a sufficient response to the complaint and deemed it the operative answer and counterclaim. The court therefore denied as moot the portion of the application seeking an extension of time to respond. The court granted the portion seeking permission to amend the response and set November 20, 2019, as the deadline to file an amended answer and counterclaim.

Because Libric stated that he intended to amend his response, the court ruled that Moose Run did not need to respond at that time to the counterclaim in the existing filing.

Summary-Judgment Briefing Schedule

Moose Run had previously indicated that it intended to file a motion for summary judgment based on the judgment in a separate criminal case identified as United States v. Libric, CR 18-196 MMC. The court set a briefing schedule for that planned motion:

- Moose Run’s motion was due December 13,

  1. - Libric’s response was due January 17,
  2. - Moose Run’s reply was due February 7,
  3. - The court stated that it would take the matter under submission as of February 7, 2020.

The order did not decide the planned summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.