Todd Grange v. Columbia Collectors Inc. et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA TODD GRANGE, CASE NO. 3:26-cv-05416-DGE Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER v. COLUMBIA COLLECTORS INC. et al., Defendants.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District Judge David G. Estudillo: Plaintiff Todd Grange filed his complaint on April 24, 2026 (Dkt. No. 4) and filed a motion for summary judgment on April 29 (Dkt. No. 9). Defendants were served on April 29. (Dkt. No. 8.) Then, on May 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 11.) On May 20, counsel for Defendants entered an appearance for the first time. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 9) for two reasons. First, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) after moving for summary judgment. It is unclear how Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is to be ruled on at this point, because the motion was based on Plaintiff’s initial complaint, which is no longer the operative complaint. Courts commonly deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment as moot when the plaintiff files an amended complaint. See, e.g., Reed v. Wash. State Dep’t of

Corr., Case No. 3:16-CV-05993-BHS-DWC, 2019 WL 640187, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2019) (recommending denying the motion for summary judgment as moot but allowing the defendant to re-file based on the allegations in the amended complaint). The same principles are true here, because Plaintiff’s amended complaint “will alter the scope of [the] . . . motion for summary judgment[.]” Farkas v. Gedney, Case No. 2:14–cv–451–JAD–VCF, 2014 WL 5782788, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2014). Second, counsel for Defendants made an appearance for the first time on May 20, just ten days before the motion’s noting date. (See Dkt. No. 13.) For purposes of efficiency for the Court and the Parties, the Court believes it prudent to permit Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint before responding to a summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 9) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) is the operative complaint in this matter. If Plaintiff intends to re-file a motion for summary judgment, he may do so, but the Parties SHALL first meet and confer to discuss a schedule for filing the motion and whether discovery is necessary, to avoid unnecessary motion practice. The Parties should also discuss whether Defendants are contemplating filing a motion to dismiss, as the Court would need to evaluate such a motion before considering any motion for summary judgment. Dated this 22nd day of May 2026.

The foregoing Minute Order authorized by THE HONORABLE DAVID G.