Glenn v. Americo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 TRAVIS GLENN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00184-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 AMERICO, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 20 51) and Defendant’s Motion to Stay or in the Alternative, Continue Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 52). Having considered the relevant record and finding oral 22 argument unnecessary, see LCR 7(b)(4), the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 23 Judgment. 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Mr. Glenn initiated the instant action on February 8, 2024, when he filed a motion for 3 leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court (Dkt. No. 1). Following the Court’s order 4 granting that motion, Mr. Glenn filed his complaint on February 13, 2024. Dkt. Nos. 4 (order 5 granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis), 5 (complaint). Summons was 6 electronically issued on February 26, 2024 (Dkt. No. 14), and after a motion for service by the 7 Court (Dkt. No. 17), Defendant agreed to waive service of summons on April 22, 2024 (Dkt. No. 8 21). Prior to and following service of Defendant, Mr. Glenn filed a series of motions for default 9 judgment against Defendant (Dkt. Nos. 16, 26, 38), which were all denied as premature or 10 procedurally improper (see Dkt. Nos. 18, 27, 43). 11 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for 12 failure to state a claim and lack of standing on May 24, 2024. Dkt. No. 33. That motion is still 13 pending before the Court. 14 On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Dkt. No. 51. Defendant 15 subsequently filed a motion to stay or continue Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until 16 after the Court rules on its pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 52. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “The summary-judgment procedure authorized by Rule 56 is a method for promptly 19 disposing of actions in which there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact or in which only 20 a question of law is involved. Thus, parties need not wait until a case is fully tried but may seek a 21 final adjudication of the action by a motion under Rule 56.” Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 22 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2712 (4th ed. 2024). “A motion for summary judgment 23 lies only when there is no genuine dispute as to material facts; summary judgment is not a 24 substitute for the trial of disputed fact issues.” Id. “Accordingly, the court cannot try issues of 1 fact on a Rule 56 motion but only is empowered to determine whether there are issues to be 2 tried.” Id. 3 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “mandate[] the entry of summary judgment, after 4 adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing 5 sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that 6 party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 7 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The inquiry at the summary judgment stage is “whether the 8 evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so 9 one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 10 242, 250–52 (1986). 11 The party moving for summary judgment must carry its burden of production by “either 12 produc[ing] evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or 13 show[ing] that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to 14 carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire v. Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., 15 Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (2000). This showing must be made through evidence in the record. 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (explaining the ways in which a “party asserting that a fact cannot be or is 17 genuinely disputed must support the assertion”). Unless the burden of production is met, “the 18 nonmoving party has no obligation to produce anything” to support its claims or defenses. 19 Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Defendant “has not disputed” 22 Plaintiff’s allegation that he never received notice of termination prior to the date of his 23 termination nor “offered any evidence to the contrary.” Dkt. No. 51 at 2. Procedurally, a 24 defendant may file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). If a 1 defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, at that time, the defendant must file an answer to a 2 complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Here, Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss in this 3 action—making clear that it disputes Plaintiff’s allegations. See Dkt. No. 33. 4 Plaintiff argues that because six months have passed since this action was initiated, and 5 Defendant has “failed to present any evidence that supports a defense to any of the allegations 6 brought before the court,” summary judgment is appropriate. Dkt. No. 51 at 5. But this case is in 7 its infancy; Defendant’s motion to dismiss is still pending, and no discovery has occurred.1 8 Further, Defendant, as the nonmoving party, has no obligation to produce anything to support its 9 defenses—to the contrary, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on both the initial burden of 10 production and the ultimate burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material 11 fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1102–03; 12 see also Judge Karen L. Stevenson & James E. Fitzgerald, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal 13 Civil Procedure Before Trial Ch. 14-D (Nat. ed. 2024). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 14 is premature. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. The Court further ORDERS as follows: 17 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 51) is DISMISSED with leave 18 to re-file if appropriate following the Court’s order on Defendant’s pending 19 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33). 20 // 21 // 22 23 1 For a more detailed description of usual pretrial proceedings, see United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit in Federal Court, 27–28 (last updated July 2024), 24 Microsoft Word - PROPOSED Pro Se Manual 3-2016 (uscourts.gov). ] 2. Defendant’s Motion to Stay or in the Alternative, Continue Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED as moot. 3 Dated this 17th day of September 2024. Laan Ze 5 Tana Lin 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24