Disposition Without Trial Flashcards
Summary Judgment, Settlement, etc.
What is a 12(b)(6) motion?
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) allows the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s legal claims, assuming the facts alleged are true. The key question is whether the facts stated constitute a valid legal claim.
What is a voluntary dismissal?
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment, allowing for potential refiling. However, a second voluntary dismissal by notice is with prejudice to prevent harassment or judge-shopping.
What is Involuntary Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute?
Under Rule 41(b), a case may be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to actively pursue it, such as not conducting discovery or failing to appear at scheduled events. Such dismissals are generally with prejudice, barring refiling due to res judicata.
What is the difference between an Entry of Default and a Default Judgment?
Entry of Default: Under Rule 55(a), the clerk enters default if the defendant fails to respond or defend. This does not end the case but prevents the defendant from contesting liability.
Default Judgment: Under Rule 55(b), the court grants relief to the plaintiff when the defendant fails to appear or respond. If the amount is “sum certain,” the clerk can enter judgment; otherwise, the court conducts a “prove-up” hearing to determine damages.
What is Summary Judgment and what is the standard for a Motion for Summary Judgment?
Purpose: Summary judgment is designed to avoid unnecessary trials when no genuine dispute of material fact exists, thus saving time and resources for courts, parties, and jurors.
Standard: Under Rule 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Moving for and Responding to Summary Judgment:
* Requirements for Moving Party: Under Rule 56(a), the moving party must show no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
* Timing: A motion can be filed anytime “until 30 days after the close of all discovery” (Rule 56(b)).
* Supporting Evidence: Both parties must support their assertions with citations to specific parts of the record (e.g., depositions, documents, affidavits, admissions) under Rule 56(c)(1).
* Objections: Under Rule 56(c)(2), a party may object to evidence that cannot be presented in an admissible form at trial.
Delay in Decision: Rule 56(d) allows the court to defer a summary judgment decision to allow time for further discovery if essential facts are not yet available.
Summary Judgment Test: The key question is whether the evidence allows a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. If yes, there is a genuine dispute; if no, summary judgment is granted.
What is the difference between the Adickes and the Celotex standards for MSJs?
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.:
* Context: In Adickes, the plaintiff alleged a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 between Kress and the police to deny her equal protection.
* Issue of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence (e.g., a policeman’s presence in the store) could support an inference of conspiracy.
* Burden of Proof: Kress failed to provide sufficient evidence to negate the possibility of a conspiracy, leaving unresolved factual disputes.
* Implications: Adickes reinforced that the moving party must eliminate all genuine disputes of material fact to succeed on summary judgment, even when the non-moving party relies on circumstantial evidence.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett:
The Supreme Court held that under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking summary judgment does not need to provide affirmative evidence negating the opposing party’s claim. Instead, the moving party can simply demonstrate that the non-moving party lacks sufficient evidence to support an essential element of its case.
In Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., the moving party (defendant) was required to provide affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the non-moving party’s (plaintiff’s) claim to obtain summary judgment. In Celotex v. Catrett, the Supreme Court held that a moving party without the burden of persuasion at trial does not need to provide affirmative evidence to negate the opponent’s claim. Instead, the moving party can point to an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s case.
