The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Apr 24, 2014

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a decision made by a court. A judge makes a decision based on legal pleadings presented to him and finds that there is no need for trial. SJ may be granted on all issues, or be granted on some issues and denied on the rest of the issues (the latter is known as "partial summary judgment").

To obtain a summary judgment, one makes a request to the Judge (called a "Motion"). The party asking for the ruling is known as the "movant" and the other party is the "non-moving" party.

Franchisees often claim that denial of summary judgment indicates that the court believes the non-movants. This is simply not true: the court is required to believe the non-movants at the SJ stage, but this is not true at trial. Moreover, denial of SJ may simply be a reflection of a judge who is reluctant to deny the non-moving party their day in court.

When granted, summary judgment has the effect of denying the non-moving party it’s day in court, and for that reason judges are often reluctant to grant a motion for SJ.

On the other hand, judges are aware of the expense of defending against frivolous claims or the expense incurred by plaintiffs who are required to litigate where there is a foregone conclusion as a matter of law (In fact, in both England and the US, summary judgment was originally only available to plaintiffs). Prof. Arthur Miller is one of a number of scholars who argue that courts are too eager to use SJ (pdf) as a case management tool and thereby usurp the province of the jury.

At the federal level, SJ is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, and there are 3 key decisions of the US Supreme Court (all from 1986) setting forth the standard for SJ:

In Celotex , the Court noted the purpose of SJ in securing a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of lawsuits. But there is a high standard for SJ, in that there must be no genuine issue of fact. The judge is expected to assume as true the pleadings of the non-moving party; if on those pleadings a jury could find for the non-moving party, then summary judgment should be denied.

As the Anderson court noted: “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Some commentators criticize the idea of believing the nonmovant, and one has called the statement "folly" [James Duane, 4 Greatest Myths About Summary Judgment, 52 Wash & Lee L.R. 1523, 1590 (1995)]

More recently, the court reiterated in Reeves v. Sanderson [530 U.S. 133 (2000)] that the court could not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, and in Beard v. Banks [548 U.S. 521 (2006)] the court stated that SJ was both the absence of material fact and a showing by the movant that he is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

A judicial decision regarding SJ may indeed sometimes indicate how the court is leaning with regard to substance, much as judicial statements during conferences may indicate how the court is viewing the case. But in a ruling denying SJ, such indications should be taken with caution; a denial of SJ is a holding that there exist triable issues of fact---all else is dicta .

Controversial aspects of SJ include (1) whether a court may appropriately deny SJ where there are no material issues of fact and (2) the preclusive effects of SJ, but we do not address those issues here and those interested may refer to an excellent article in the Fall 2002 Hofstra Law Review (31 Hof. L.R. 91 ), which also discusses the history of SJ going back to English law and noting the waxing and waning of judicial granting of SJ in the United States. Also, remember that state laws may vary from the federal rules.

One interesting exception to the reluctance to grant summary judgment is the California courts which favor summary judgment in First Amendment cases, as discussed elsewhere on BMM.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

3 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ray Borradale's picture

State clash with Federal

When State laws and Federal laws differ, and I imgaine they do from time to time and to varying degrees, does Federal law necessarily prevail over State law or does it come down to a case by case ajudication?

Ray: to the extent that a

Ray: to the extent that a federal court is dealing with procedural law, it follows the FRCP (as discussed in the article above) and/or the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).

When dealing with substantive law, the federal court traditionally applied the law of the applicable state. This is due to historical reasons too long to discuss here.

However there is an increasing body of federal statutory law which regulates much of what historically was the province of state law. From the time of the New Deal legislation in the 1930s up till the Lopez case ( 514 U.S. 549) in 1995, the Supreme Court held that the federal legislature could do whatever it damn well pleased. The result is that the system of "dual sovereigns" which is theoretically the basis of American law is honored more in the breach than the observance.

Even prior to Lopez, the Supreme Court held in "South Dakota v. Dole" ( 483 U.S. 203) that the federal legislature could attach conditions to any money that the feds sent down to the states. As a practical matter, this means that if the states want to get their cut of the gusher of money flowing from Washington, they dance to the tune dictated by the federal legislature--which means that the states must change their laws if they want to get the money.

As to what happens when federal law differs with state law, this is a matter of contention particularly in the conservative sectors of the legal community. An easy answer is that federal law does indeed preempt state law, but a more nuanced view would be fact-specific insofar as it would entail an examination as to whether the federal statute was designed to occupy the whole field or merely to serve as a baseline from which states are free to impose greater regulation.

Ray Borradale's picture

State clash with Federal

When State laws and Federal laws differ, and I imgaine they do from time to time and to varying degrees, does Federal law necessarily prevail over State law or does it come down to a case by case ajudication?