Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moose Run, LLC v. Libric, 19-cv-01879-MMC. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20191218c91 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO COUNTERCLAIM MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed October 16, 2019, the Court granted defendant's request to file an amended answer and counterclaim, and set November 20, 2019, as the deadline to file any such amended pleading. Now before the Court is defendant's "Amended Reply to Complaint and Request to File Exhibits `B' and `G' by De
More

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO COUNTERCLAIM

By order filed October 16, 2019, the Court granted defendant's request to file an amended answer and counterclaim, and set November 20, 2019, as the deadline to file any such amended pleading. Now before the Court is defendant's "Amended Reply to Complaint and Request to File Exhibits `B' and `G' by December 31, 2019 or When Available," which document was received by the Clerk of Court on December 4, 2019, and is deemed filed on November 19, 2019.1 Having read and considered defendant's filing, the Court rules as follows.

The above-referenced filing by defendant includes his timely-filed amended answer and counterclaim. In addition, the filing includes a request, supported by a declaration, that defendant be afforded a further extension to file two exhibits referenced in said amended pleading, specifically, Exhibits B and G, which defendant describes, respectively, as a "forensic accountants report" and a "transcript of a telephone conference call." (See Libric Decl., first page.) In support of such request, defendant states that, although he requested such documents in September 2019, or earlier, he has yet to receive them in the mail and prison officials have not allowed him to print them out electronically.

As set forth in the Court's orders of August 6, 2019, and September 11, 2019, defendant is not required to submit evidence in connection with his answer to the complaint. As the amended answer and counterclaim set forth the content of the two exhibits referenced by defendant in his request, the Court finds it unnecessary to further delay proceedings to await defendant's receipt of those exhibits.

Accordingly, defendant's request for further leave to amend his answer and counterclaim is hereby DENIED. Defendant is, however, hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of said exhibits on plaintiff when he receives them.2

Lastly, as defendant has now filed his amended answer and counterclaim, and no further amendment is contemplated at this time, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than January 10, 2020, its response to defendant's counterclaim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. As defendant is incarcerated and proceeds pro se, the above-referenced document is deemed filed on the date it was given to prison officials for mailing, which, in this instance, was November 19, 2019. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274-76 (1988) (holding pro se prisoner's legal document is deemed filed on date such prisoner presents it to prison officials for mailing).
2. Defendant need not file the exhibits with the Clerk of Court unless they are offered in support of or in opposition to a motion.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer