Getz v. McCusker

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 3, 2013
DocketCUMcv-13-316
StatusUnpublished

This text of Getz v. McCusker (Getz v. McCusker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Getz v. McCusker, (Me. Super. Ct. 2013).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV -13-316 f_ / ;v't\1- CLL.N\ ~ /~f¢/d-0/3 MARJORIE J. GETZ,

Plaintiff v. ORDER

ELIZABETH McCUSKER and STEPHEN McCUSKER,

Defendants

Before the court is a motion for reconsideration and leave to amend, signed by

defendant Stephen McCusker. The plaintiff's amended complaint was served on the

defendants on 6 I 27 I 13. Defendant Stephen McCusker filed an answer to the amended

complaint on 7 I 16 I 13. He filed an amended answer and the defendants filed a

counterclaim on 8 I 2 I 13. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim and an

objection to the defendant Stephen McCusker's amended answer on 8115113. Neither

defendant responded to the motion or objection. 1 On 10 I 1 I 13, the court determined

that the amended answer and counterclaim were not filed in a timely manner and,

although filed, were of no legal significance.

Self-represented parties are held to the same standard as represented parties. See

Dyer, Goodall and Federle, LLC v. Proctor, 2007 ME 145, <[18, 935 A.2d 1123. In his

motion, the defendant Stephen McCusker provides no basis on which the court can

make a finding of excusable neglect. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b); see Dyer, 2007 ME 145, <[ 18,

935 A.2d 1123. Further, the defendants filed no opposition to the plaintiff's motion to

1 Neither the plaintiff's objection to the amended answer nor the defendant Stephen McCusker's motion for reconsideration and leave to amend contained the required Rule 7(b)(l)(A) language. M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l)(A). The plaintiff's motion to dismiss did contain the required language. dismiss the counterclaim and defendant Stephen McKusker filed no opposition to the

objection to his amended answer but he now asks the court to reconsider the resulting

order. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(c)(3); 7(b)(5).

The Defendant Stephen McCusker's Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to Amend is Denied.

Date: December 3, 2013 ancy Mills Justice, Superior Court MARJORIE J GETZ VS ELIZABETH MCCUSKER UTN: AOCSsr ,-2012-0112469 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2013-00316

MARJORIE J. GETZ PL

PO BOX 18208 PORTLAND ME 04112

ELIZABETH MCCUSKER DEF

8 COUNTY ROAD RAYMOND ME 04071

STEPHEN R. MCCCUSKER DEF ~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------------------------

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dyer Goodall and Federle, LLC v. Proctor
2007 ME 145 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Getz v. McCusker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getz-v-mccusker-mesuperct-2013.