Bjornson v. USAA Credit Card

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 KEVIN BJORNSON, CASE NO. 20-cv-5449 RJB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS 13 EQUIFAX INC., et al., 14 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Summons. Dkt.

46. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remainder of the record herein. For the reasons set forth below, the motion should be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claims damages against the defendants, who are various financial institutions and credit bureaus. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff has filed motions for entry of default against three of the defendants (Dkt. 25; 32; and 38); the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for entry of default against Defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank (“USAA FSB”)” (Dkt. 34), but the Clerk made entries of default against Defendants Equifax Inc. (Dkt. 42) and Discover Card (Dkt.

44).

1 Plaintiff’s instant motion requests leave to amend the summons apparently issued to the five defendants in this case. Dkt. 46. The summons in this case is addressed to all five defendants. Dkt. 6. It appears that Plaintiff served a copy of the summons and complaint on each of the defendants individually. Dkts. 11–12; and 15–18. The instant motion indicates that Plaintiff wishes to reissue an amended, individually addressed summons on each of the defendants. Dkt. 46. It appears that Plaintiff believes he erred in having the summons addressed to multiple defendants. See Dkt. 46. The instant motion apparently provides copies of the proposed amended summonses. Dkt. 46-2. Plaintiff has made no apparent changes to the proposed amended summonses except for taking the multiple addressees listed on the original summons and listing them across five individual summonses. Compare Dkt. 46-1, with Dkt. 46- 2.

12 It is unclear why Plaintiff believes that he erred in addressing the summons to multiple defendants, although it may be that one or more of the defendants has suggested that doing so was erroneous. See, e.g., Dkt. 28, at 7 (Defendant USAA FSB’s response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default states that “Plaintiff requested not that summons be issued to USAA FSB specifically in accordance with Rule 4, but that a summons be issued en masse to all of the defendants named herein.”).

18 Plaintiff’s instant motion should be denied without prejudice because it appears granting Plaintiff leave to amend the summons as proposed would only waste the resources of the parties and the court. Based on the Court’s independent research, it does not appear that a summons addressed to multiple defendants is necessarily prohibited: 22 The language of Rule 4(b) makes clear that when multiple defendants are to be served, a copy of the summons issued by the 23 clerk may be served on each defendant. The Advisory Committee Notes following Rule 4 further explain that “[i]f there are multiple 1 defendants, the plaintiff may secure issuance of a summons for each defendant, or may serve copies of a single original bearing 2 the names of multiple defendants if the addressee of the summons is effectively identified.”

New York Transp., Inc. v. Naples Transp., Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 382, 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (emphasis added).

5 Here, it appears that the addressees of the summons are effectively identified and that fracturing the summons into multiple summonses would achieve no notice or service of process not already performed by Plaintiff.

8 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Summons (Dkt. 46) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

13 Dated this 31st day of July, 2020.

14 A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge