CIVIL PROCEDURE – Professor Kitrosser
MASTER OUTLINE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Time Spent: 4 Class Periods)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS A PRETRIAL DEVISE THAT PERMITS THE COURT TO LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE PLEADINGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ISSUE OF FACT TO BE TRIED.
I. Adjudication before Trial: Rule 56 Summary Judgment – should the court enter summary judgment against a party?
A. Movant’s Party Status – is the movant the party bearing the burden of proof on the claim at trial?
i. Yes. If so, the movant must present the court with sufficient factual evidence (from the existing record or through additional submissions) to support their claim, i.e., evidence of such a strength that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party. Proceed to the next question.
ii. No. If not, the movant only has the burden of showing the court “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” RULE 56(c).
a. This burden may be discharged through the presentation of affidavits or other factual evidence or simply by pointing to the existing evidence and arguing that it fails to support the non-movant’s claim which then shifts → the burden of proof to the non-moving party.
(1) In Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., p.428, it was demonstrated that the moving party (without the burden of proof) must make a strong showing to invoke the burden shift required.
(2) In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, p.435, which is governing law, rejected the earlier view. Justice White said that: “It is not enough to move for summary judgment… with the conclusory assertion that the π has no evidence to prove his case.” Justice Rehnquist, drawing on the language from Rule 56(b) that the moving party without the burden of proof at trial could move for summary judgment “with or without supporting affidavits.” Justice Brennan in dissent explains the standard that the moving party must make a prima facie showing by:
– (i) submitting affirmative evidence that NEGATES an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim; and
– (ii) demonstrating to the Court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
→ Under Celotex many lower court decisions have read that decision not to impose a significant triggering burden on a movant who lacks the burden of production at trial. Indeed, many lower court decisions following Celotex have either reduced he burden dramatically or ignored it completely. See e.g., Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc; Alder v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc; Elkins v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc; Whetstine v. Gates Rubber Co.; and Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co.
→ CONTRAST: In Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., (1991) the district court had granted Δ’s summary judgment motion on the ground that πs would not be able to prove their case. The appellate court reversed on the ground that Δ had not satisfied its initial burden to justify summary judgment. It concluded “emphatically” that Celotex did not overrule Adickes, and was an exception for an uncommon situation where neither party could prove either the affirmative or the negative of an essential element of the claim. HOWEVER, this decision has been criticized as contrary to the letter and spirit of Cel
asive evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary.”
a. No. If the party’s evidence is unpersuasive, can be discounted, or fails to disprove more reasonable alternate explanations, a court may determine that the evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and enter summary judgment.
b. Yes. If the party’s evidence is persuasive, proceed to the next question.
iii. Evidentiary Standard – does the party’s evidence prove their case to the degree required under the relevant evidentiary standard that would be applicable at trial? Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 1986, p.463
a. No. If not, summary judgment should be entered against the party. Go to “D”
b. Yes. If so, summary judgment should not be entered against the party.
C. What does Rule 56(e) state concerning evidence the parties must present? See Rule 56 (e)
i. In determining whether there is an issue of material fact the Court should consider the admissions that were made. The evidence produced by the moving party must be in compliance with Rule 56(e):
a. Affidavits from personal knowledge and those affidavits may be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits.
b. Evidence admissible at trial or reducible to admissible information.
