Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 17, 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 Libric’s request for further amendment, directed exhibit service, and set Moose Run’s response deadline.

Who this affects

Renato Libric’s request for additional time or amendment was denied; Moose Run, LLC was given a deadline to respond to the counterclaim.

What happened

In Moose Run, LLC v. Libric, Renato Libric submitted an amended answer and counterclaim along with a request for more time to obtain and file two exhibits. The court treated the filing as timely because Libric was incarcerated and represented himself.

Libric said the exhibits were a forensic accountant’s report and a telephone-conference transcript, and that he had not received them. The court said he did not need to submit evidence with his answer and that the amended pleading already described the exhibits’ contents.

Judge Maxine Chesney denied Libric’s request for further leave to amend, directed him to serve the exhibits on Moose Run when he receives them, and ordered Moose Run to respond to the counterclaim by January 10, 2020.

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
Dec. 17, 2019

Background

The court had previously allowed Renato Libric to file an amended answer and counterclaim and set November 20, 2019, as the deadline. Libric then submitted a filing titled “Amended Reply to Complaint and Request to File Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘G’ by December 31, 2019 or When Available.” The clerk received it on December 4, 2019, but the court deemed it filed on November 19, 2019, because Libric was incarcerated and represented himself and the document was given to prison officials for mailing on that date.

The filing contained Libric’s timely amended answer and counterclaim. It also asked for more time to file two referenced exhibits: Exhibit B, described as a forensic accountant’s report, and Exhibit G, described as a transcript of a telephone conference. Libric stated that he had requested the documents in September 2019 or earlier but had not received them, and that prison officials had not allowed him to print them electronically.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on its earlier orders stating that Libric was not required to submit evidence with his answer. Because the amended answer and counterclaim already set out the contents of the two referenced exhibits, the court found it unnecessary to delay the case while Libric awaited the documents.

Ruling

The court denied Libric’s request for further leave to amend his answer and counterclaim. It directed Libric to serve copies of the exhibits on Moose Run when he receives them. The court also directed Moose Run to file its response to Libric’s counterclaim no later than January 10, 2020. The court stated that Libric need not file the exhibits with the clerk unless he offers them in support of or opposition to a 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.