Ligeri v. Parker

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00829
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI, CASE NO. C25-0829-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER TERMINATING MOTIONS 9 v.

10 NATALIE PARKER, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff Benjamin Joseph Ligeri, representing himself, filed this action in May 2025 13 claiming that Defendants (employees of and lawyers representing Amazon.com, Inc.) presented 14 false evidence to unfairly force him to arbitrate claims arising from the termination of certain third- 15 party selling accounts. See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 7. On June 23, 2025, the Court entered an order 16 setting deadlines for the parties’ conference in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 26(f) (due July 14, 2025), the parties’ exchange of initial disclosures (due July 28, 2025), and the 18 joint status report (due August 4, 2025). Dkt. No. 15. On June 27, 2025, Ligeri filed a motion for 19 partial summary judgment on his claim for fraud on the court, and that motion is scheduled to 20 become ripe on July 29, 2025. Dkt. No. 17. 21 On July 18, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and the early case deadlines 22 because they planned to file a motion for expedited dismissal. Dkt. No. 18. Defendants filed that 23 motion to dismiss on July 18, 2025, and it is scheduled to become ripe on August 15, 2025. Dkt. 24 1 No. 19. Ligeri filed a combined response (Dkt. No. 21) to his own partial summary judgment 2 motion as well as to Defendants’ motions to dismiss and to stay on July 27, 2025, and then later 3 that same day filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 23. Ligeri’s amended complaint is

4 approximately three times longer than his original complaint and includes most of the same claims 5 as the original complaint plus additional claims. Compare Dkt. No. 7 with Dkt. No. 23. 6 Ligeri was entitled to amend his pleading in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss 7 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), but because his amended complaint is not 8 substantially identical to the original complaint, it moots his motion for partial summary judgment 9 as well as Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth, 701 F. Supp. 3d 10 1099, 1108 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (“The filing of an amended complaint generally moots a pending 11 motion to dismiss unless the amended complaint is substantially identical to the original 12 complaint.”); Bennett v. Burton, No. 2:21-cv-1340 WBS KJN P, 2022 WL 17584386, at *1 (E.D.

13 Cal. Dec. 12, 2022) (finding that a plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint moots a pending 14 motion for summary judgment). 15 Accordingly, the clerk is directed to TERMINATE the mooted motions (Dkt. Nos. 17, 19), 16 which may be re-filed with respect to the amended complaint. The other motions pending in this 17 matter will be addressed after they are ripe. 18 Dated this 29th day of July, 2025. 19 A 20 Kymberly K. Evanson 21 United States District Judge

23 24