Summary Judgment Terms Flashcards
Summary Judgment: Purposes, Principles, Themes
- any party—P, D, claimant cross claimant or counter claimant—may move for summary judgment under rule 56
- Can be sought as to the entire claim or defense or parts of claim or defense
- trials are expensive (especially where value of claims is so low that trial wouldn’t be worth it)
- liberal, pleading requirements make for possibly lots of unnecessary trials
- Resolving things before trial saves money time and judicial resources
- weed out sham cases by factually screening them
- submit the motion and affidavits (what someone would put who would be put on stand in trial with testified to) summary judgment evidence, transcripts, documentary proof; answers, interrogatories: statements on the record, which is evidence
- Then the opposing party will file their own
- Then court will review and assess whether evidence points to something happening or not
- Make all reasonable inferences in favor of non-moving party (moving parties inferences may seem of higher quality/witnesses, more qualified because as long as non-moving party establishes there is a dispute, the court doesn’t weigh into jury type inferences)
- court will not be:
- Assessing relative credibility of witnesses/ experts
- Weighing strength of competing documentary accounts
- draw inferences to the existence of any legally significant fact not in the record
- D is proving no genuine issue of fact
Summary judgment basics
Rule 56c2
Rule 56a
Rule 12 D says that rule 12B6 or 12C motions to which evidence is attached are converted to summary judgment motions decided by the summary judgment standard:
- Used to be rule 56 C2: movement is entitled to summary judgment, if the pleadings discovery and disclosure materials on file and any affidavit show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the movement is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
Newish Rule (standard: Rule 56a):
A party may move for summary judgment, and identifying each claim or defense, or the party of each claim or defense on which summary judgment is sought . The court shall grant summary judgment if the movement shows there is no genuine dispute to any material fact, and the movement is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 4 components:
- Identify each claim or defense, for which summary judgment is sought.
- Show no genuine dispute (possible or speculative disputes are not enough to defeat summary judgment)
- As to a material fact (one that “matters” to the outcome)
- AND show entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Rule 56(e) - court options on summary judgment motion
- can provide additional opportunities to support summary judgment motion response initial submissions in adequate under rule 56C
- Can grant the summary judgment without any more chances (assuming any unsupported fact to be conceded/not subject to genuine dispute)
- Can hold summary judgment in abeyance (suspension) pending additional discovery, order an evident hearing or any other appropriate order
Rule 56(f) additional court options
- can grant SJ for non movant even if no cross-motion
- can grant SJ on grounds not raised by parties AND
- can grant SJ sua sponte as long as it gives the parties notice and an opportunity to oppose
Burdens of Production
- movant has initial burden to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (rule 56 a)
- how? It depends on who has the burden of proof at trial on the claim or defense that issue on the sub summary judgment motion.
- remember: plaintiff has burden on prima Facie case; defendant has burden on affirmative defenses
- Burden then shifts to non-moving party to show that a genuine dispute exists
Rule 56(c)(1) Evidence to support or oppose a motion for summary judgment
A. May attach evidence from the record
B. May support or oppose by showing
- the materials cited do not establish a genuine dispute
- that the material sided do not show an absence of a genuine dispute; OR
- that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact
Burden of Production after Celotex
-
Who has the burden of proof?
- if p moves recovery judgment on one of their claims, they have burden of proof at every element of trial and have to show that there’s no disputed fact as to any element of their claim
- if D moves for summary judgment on affirmative defense, have to show that no reasonable jury can find in favor of on ONE component of defense (that’s material to it) - Has the moving party successfully carried its initial summary judgment burden?
- if you don’t bear burden of proof, then you can discharge your oppositions burden of production at summary judgment (56c1)
A) but your own evidence in
B) show there is a gap in the evidence of the other side - Burden shifts to non-moving party and they have to show if there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, so not to move for summary judgment and go to trial (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby)
- Show that a reasonable jury on the correct evidentiary standard could return a verdict in your favor on that issue; this is doing less
- do NOT have to show that a reasonable jury could NOT return of verdict for your opponent. Just said they could go either way (to deny summary judgment)
Standard for Meeting the Burden or Persuasion
Represents equality and quantity of evidence a party must produce at trial to prevail. Three most common standards:
- Preponderance of the evidence = more than 50%
- Clear and convincing evidence (in between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt. **Most civil cases)
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
- hear the court is not supposed to step into the role of the jury, balance the weight of conflicting evidence, authenticity of docs or their quality UNLESS Scott v. Harris
Entitlement to Judgment as a Matter of Law Test (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby)
Could a reasonable jury return a verdict for the nonmoving party?
- same as the standard for judgment as matter of law under rule 50
- If a reasonable jury could find for either party no summary judgment
- If a reasonable jury could for only the movement grant summary judgment
Considering the appropriate evidentiary standard
- Most often it’s preponderance of the evidence standard i.e. does the evidence show them more likely than not at least 51% probable the moving party should win
- Standards, ex: clear & convincing evidence standard (Anderson)
And considering the relevant law (Matsushita)
- I.e., elements to make out of prima facie case; constraints on inference from certain facts
