You're viewing Docket Item 41 from the case Coppes v. Berman & Rabin, P.A.. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-05019-BHS Document 41 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON




AT TACOMA

KAREN COPPES,





v.

Plaintiff,

BERMAN & RABIN, PA,



Defendant.

CASE NO. C13-5019 BHS

ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ numerous, preliminary non-

dispositive and dispositive motions.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Late last year or early this year, Plaintiff Karen Coppes gave Defendant Berman &

Rabin, PA (“B&R”) notice of a lawsuit that she intended to file in a Washington State

superior court. Dkt. 1. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., Washington State Collection

Agency Act (“CAA”), RCW Chapter 19.16, and Washington Consumer Protection Act

(“CPA”), RCW Chapter 19.86. Id., Exh. A. Within thirty days of notice of the lawsuit,

B&R removed the matter to this Court. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

The motion to amend (Dkt. 10) is DENIED because Coppes failed to attach a

proposed complaint pursuant to Local Rule 15.

ORDER - 1





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22





Case 3:13-cv-05019-BHS Document 41 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2



The motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED because Coppes

fails to allege that she was represented by an attorney when B&R sent her the collection

letters. The Court, however, may only dismiss a complaint without leave to amend if any

amendment would be futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,

1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on the representations in Coppes’s motion to amend, it does

not appear that amendments would be futile. Therefore, Coppes is GRANTED leave to

amend her complaint and shall file an amended complaint no later than June 14, 2013.

The motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 11) is DENIED as moot because there

currently is no operative complaint.

The motion to strike affirmative defenses (Dkt. 25) is DENIED as moot because

there is no operative complaint to assert affirmative defenses against.

The motion to order mediation (Dkt. 20) is DENIED. Although this case appears

ripe for mediation, the parties’ early, extensive motion practice may have interfered with

the parties’ ability to assess the merits of their positions. This order puts the parties back

to square one, and the Court encourages another attempt at mediation. The Court also

directs the Clerk to set a new date for the parties to submit a joint status report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 4th day of June, 2013.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge



ORDER - 2





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22