So, in relation to a Summary Judgment, it is important to recognize that a Summary Judgment can only be granted if there are no genuine issues of material fact available for dispute. An example (though a loose one) would be if A sued B for assault, and in the cause of action, admitted that A and B haven't seen each other in 15 years. Even if there was an assault 15 years ago, the SOL would have long passed, and the Summary Judgement would be granted. Here, however, we have a definite dispute of material fact that needs to be heard.
If the claim is that the Summary Judgment will be granted due to the ruling in another case, then that making the claim that SJ should be granted under the theory of Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel (basically saying another case already came up with a ruling for this case and should be ruled the same way). One of the requirements for res judicata and collateral estoppel is a party in common. Therefore, because the Collins case does not share a party in common, res judicata nor collateral estoppel can be the basis for an SJ.
Therefore, I do not believe an SJ is available in the Collins case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
