Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO SERVICE; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 30 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court are three documents filed by defendant Renato Libric, who proceeds pro se: (1) "Objection to Purported Service," filed May 13, 2019; (2) "Second Objection to Purported Service," filed June 21, 2019; and (3) "Request for an Extension of Time to File Reply to Complaint and Summons," filed July
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO SERVICE; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 30 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court are three documents filed by defendant Renato Libric, who proceeds pro se: (1) "Objection to Purported Service," filed May 13, 2019; (2) "Second Objection to Purported Service," filed June 21, 2019; and (3) "Request for an Extension of Time to File Reply to Complaint and Summons," filed July ..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO SERVICE; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Re: Dkt. No. 30
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court are three documents filed by defendant Renato Libric, who proceeds pro se: (1) "Objection to Purported Service," filed May 13, 2019; (2) "Second Objection to Purported Service," filed June 21, 2019; and (3) "Request for an Extension of Time to File Reply to Complaint and Summons," filed July 24, 2019."1 Plaintiff Moose Run, LCC has filed opposition to each such filing. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the above-referenced matters, the Court hereby rules as follows:
1. As defendant's first objection to service is directed to plaintiff's initial service attempt (see Proof of Service, filed May 3, 2019; Libric Decl., filed May 13, 2019, at 1; Kravitz Decl., filed June 24, 2019, ¶¶ 8-10) and plaintiff no longer relies on said attempt (see Kravitz Decl., filed June 24, 2019, ¶¶ 11-12), defendant's first Objection is hereby DENIED as moot.
2. For the reasons stated by plaintiff (see Pl.'s Amended Opp., filed July 12, 2019, at 2:26-4:9), the Court finds service was properly effectuated May 17, 2019, and, accordingly, defendant's second objection to service is hereby DENIED.2
3. Defendant's request for an extension of time to file a response to the complaint is hereby GRANTED in part. Although defendant has not shown good exists for the ninety-day extension he seeks,3 the Court will afford defendant an extension of shorter length. Specifically, defendant's response to the complaint shall be filed no later than September 20, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
