#11421 - Summary Judgment - Civil Procedure

Summary Judgment

no genuine issue of material fact (SJ) = no legally sufficient evidentiary basis (dismiss as matter of law)

Rule 56

To pierce the pleadings & assess the proof

Elements

• May not use pleading. Must use evidence. One major use of discovery is to allow for summary judgment.

• May be plead at any time.

• Affidavits/other discovery items must be the type admissible at trial.

• Burden of proof first on the defendant. Then shifts to plaintiff. If plaintiff does not meet burden of proof, then judge decides against plaintiff as a matter of law (no legally sufficient evidentiary basis, no genuine issue as to any material fact)

  1. Note: burden of proof originally on defendant so that SJ does not turn into discovery device (forcing plaintiff to reveal an argument)

  2. Plaintiff has 2 sub goals under burden of persuasion

     1. resolving all issues of credibility in my favor

     2. And drawing all reasonable inferences in my favor

• Is there enough evidence for jury to accept plaintiff's claim?

  1. Light most favorable to plaintiff

  2. In instance where there are 2 possible inferences, court must make inference which supports the plaintiff.

• Plaintiff may also want to do this: stop jury from hearing some affirmative defense for emotional appeal

• Court looks at all evidence in record as a whole, may not make credibility determinations, must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of nonmoving party, must not weigh evidence

  1. But the modern rule is that the court is only required to look to the information in the record which parties point it toward: 56(c)(3)

  2. Strike issues of credibility, strike contradictions

Cases

1. Adickes v Kress: where plaintiff claimed that the employees of the restaurant and the police had conspired toward her arrest, under color of state law. plaintiff must prove that the defendant deprived her a right secured by Constitution & plaintiff must show that defendant deprived her of that constitutional right under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory. Defendant moved for summary judgment, but failed to prove that the police never entered the store/never spoke with an employee. Given the evidence, an inference for plaintiff WAS possible.

   • Moving party lost because they failed to produce evidence negating plaintiff's claim.

2. Celotex: where moving party tried to show that plaintiff admissible evidence to support her claim that exposure to defendant's drug resulted in birth defects. The defendant claims that there is no issue of material fact of proximate cause because plaintiff failed to produce evidence of it (by failing to identify any witnesses who could testify about decedent's exposure to petitioner's asbestos products).

   • Majority says that it is enough that the moving party show, or point out, to the court that there is an absence of evidence (not necessary that they have documents which negate the claims of the plaintiff, only have to point to the insufficiency in proof for plaintiff's side)

   • Dissent says that the majority and moving party totally ignored the evidence which was presented by the plaintiff after the initial movement for summary judgment.

   • Result: remanded : Now that the Supreme Court has shown that petitioner adequately pointed to a part of the evidence which was insufficient to show plaintiff's claim, the district court (because the SC does not feel knowledgeable enough to) should consider plaintiff's brief and oral argument regarding 1) that she has made an adequate showing and 2) no such showing would have been required anyway (given federal statute)

Judgment as a matter of law in a jury trial

Rule 50

After a jury has fully heard a trial and made a decision, a judge can

1. jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue

2. Moving party within 28 days can move for court to judge as matter law against jury's decision

Is it impossible, by a preponderance of the evidence, for the jury to find for x?

Cases

1. Simblest v Maynard: where defendant moved for judgment as matter of law after jury found for plaintiff. Court ruled as matter of law because plaintiff failed to show that he did not break the law (pulling over for fire truck) (witnesses saying that there was an alarm, that he didn't see flashing siren means he did not look before crossing the intersection). Under 50(b) - not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff

   1. Overwhelming support for defendant: His own witnesses say that he should've seen the truck 5-10 seconds earlier. Objective photos show that vision was not obstructed. The evidence provided by him does not meet his burden of proof. His own testimony is the equivalent of a pleading (not accepted in SJ, and probably not accepted here either).

2. Sioux City & Pacific RR v Stout: Defendants say that this should be decided as a matter of law because there are no undisputed facts, thus those facts should be applied by a judge to the elements of negligence. The court says that those undisputed facts can nonetheless lead to different inferences & that a jury is necessary in knowing what course of law is most beneficial to their community. "It is assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of life than does one man, that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions from admitted facts thus occurring than can a single judge."

   1. Take away rules

      • in some situations, even where the facts are undisputed, the question of negligence is close enough to leave to the jury.

      • Cultural geography of jury in influencing outcome

3. Scott v. Harris: again, there are no undisputed facts, but this time the court finds for defendant as a matter of law. Uses the video & decides that no reasonable jury could possibly find for the plaintiff.

   1. Reeve's rules tell us that in viewing the record on summary judgment and deciding whether mr Harris has met his burden on the issue of showing unreasonable conduct, we look only at the evidence 1) favoring Harris; 2) don't resolve credibility issues; 3) draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Harris; 4) don't weigh the evidence.

   2. Balance nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's fourth...