Adjudication Without Trial Flashcards
Summary judgment - general rule
Summary judgment must be granted if, from the pleadings, affidavits, and discovery materials, it appears that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
What is required when the moving party submits an affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment?
If the moving party submits an affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must counter that affidavit with his own evidence from affidavits, discovery, etc., on the matter. If a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion, grant summary judgment if appropriate, give the party an opportunity to address the fact, or issue any other appropriate order.
Renewed judgment as a matter of law procedure
Under the federal rules, a judgment as a matter of law must be made at some point during the trial in order to move for a renewed JMOL. A party is limited to the grounds raised in the initial JMOL, or a party is unable to “renew” an objection that was not raised in the initial motion, as there would be no objection to renew. The party must make the renewed motion for JMOL within 28 days of the judgment.
Substance of a renewed JMOL
To grant a motion for JMOL or a renewed motion for JMOL, the court must find that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find for the party on the issue. The court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and without considering the credibility of witnesses.
Motion for New Trial
A new trial may be granted because of some serious error that occurred during the trial (for example, an error in the admission of evidence, error in instructing the jury, the verdict is excessive, etc.). In theory, a new trial could be granted if the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, but the judge may not replace the jury verdict with the verdict he would have reached, so it must be serious error in the judgment.
Appeals - general rules
Ordinarily, only a final order is appealable. A final order is one that disposes of the whole case (i.e., all claims and all parties) on the merits. Under the Federal Rules, when multiple claims or multiple parties are involved in an action, the court may enter a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties on (i) an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and (ii) an express direction for the entry of judgment. Unless the trial judge make the express determination, the order determining the merits of fewer than all of the claims or dismissing fewer than all of the aprties is nto a final judgment and is not appealable.
Exceptional methods of appeal- writs of mandamus and prohibition
In exceptional cases, circumvention of the final judgment rule through the appellate writes of mandamus and prohibition is allowed. Mandamus commands a trial judge to act and prohibition commands the judge to refrain from acting. The writs (mandamus and prohibition) are available only if an appeal will be insufficient to correct a problem and the trial court’s actions constitute a serious abuse of power that must be immediately corrected.
Exceptional methods of appeal - collateral order
If the claim or issue is separable from and collateral to the main suit and is too important to require deferring appellate review, it may be classified as a judgment in a separate (“collateral”) proceeding and thus be appealable.
Exceptional methods of appeal - Interlocutory Appeals Act
Under the Interlocutory Appeals Act, review is discretionary and may be available when:
- the trial judge certifies that the interlocutory order involves a controlling question of law, as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; and
- the court of appeals then agrees to allow the appeal
Amendment of pleadings
A plaintiff may amend the complaint once as a matter of course (i.e., without court intervention) not later than 21 days after service of the defendant’s answer. FRCP 15 states that leave of court (to grant motions to amend) is to be freely given when justice so requires. The rule does not provide any clear date when amendments are no longer permissible, although later amendments obviously would be less fair and less likely to be considered in the interest of justice. Additionally, for statute of limitations purposes, proposed claims may be considered to relate back to the date of the original pleading in which the claim was made.
Motion for relief from judgment
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order on the following grounds:
(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(ii) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial;
(iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(iv) the judgment is void;
(v) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgement on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (vi) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
For ground (i), (ii), and (iii), the motion must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year from the judgement; for the other grounds, the motion must be made within a reasonable time (but remember that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time). A motion for relief from judgment to correct clerical mistakes has no time limit, and the court order correcting the error dates back to the time judgment was entered. Such a motion is left to the trial judge’s discretion, and, on appeal, her decision will be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard.
Default judgments and collateral attack
Default judgments that are constitutionally or procedurally defective are subject to a collateral attack and may not be enforced under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. A collateral attack is the name used to describe a defendant’s ability to challenge a default judgment where the defendant never appeared in the action at all. Default judgements that are either constitutionally or procedurally defective are subject to collateral attacks. Under FRCP 4, if no acknowledgment is made to a summons and complaint that was improperly served via first class mail, a defendant must be served according to the FRCP. If not, it is considered procedurally defective and is therefore subject to a collateral attack.
