Adjudication

Adjudication without Trial

Summary Judgment (Rule 56)

Default Judgment (Rule 55)

I. Summary Judgment Generally

R56- Any party upto 30 days after close of discovery

Motion or sua sponte

SJ is justified when no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

Court

• May draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party

• Not weigh evidence or creditability

I. Summary Judgment Burdens

Burden of production—i.e., the burden of proof:

• Is typically on P; P is responsible for producing a certain threshold of evidence, which is enough proof for a reasonable jury to decide in P’s favor

• D must meet that burden of production with respect to affirmative defenses

Burden of persuasion—the burden of persuading the factfinder that a particular fact is true.

• Even if a party meets its burden of production, it may still lose if it has not carried its burden of persuasion—i.e., it has not persuaded the factfinder that a particular fact (or facts) are true.

• Thus, even if P has met its burden of production and D has not brought forward any evidence, P can still lose if it has not met its burden of persuasion.

Sum. Judge.- Adickes

Where P has met its burden of production and D does not meet its burden as the movant, D may be denied motion for summary judgment.

D was movant but did not offer any evidence in the basket thus P prevailed

Sum. Judge.- Celotex

Where P has failed to meet its burden of production (proof), D, movant, meets its summary judgment burden by pointing out the deficiencies in P’s proof; D need not additionally offer evidence negating opponent’s claims

P failed to respond to interog… thus there was no dispute due to lack of evidence D prevails

Sum. Judge.- Scott

No “genuine issue” as to a material fact where there is a video recording of the events such that, the Court concludes, “no reasonable jury could believe” one version of the events, and thus, summary judgment warranted

II. Default Judgment

R55- judgement against a party who fails to plead or otherwise defend.

D can collaterally attack upon default:

• D fails to receive notice of the suit

• D does not believe the court has personal jurisdiction over it (Pennoyer)

Def. Judge.- Coulas

Entry of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 is warranted where a party fails to plead (e.g., by not answering) or file a responsive motion (e.g., a motion to dismiss), but not where the party fails to appear at trial.

Rule 60 relief (negligent)?

Trial

Judgment as a Matter of Law & Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (Rule 50)

New Trial (Rule 59)

Power to set Aside a Judgment (Rule 60)

Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) & Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) (Rule 50)- Generally

• 7th Amendment

• Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) before submission to the jury, pursuant to Rule 50(a), takes the case away from the jury and places the court in the position of deciding.

• JMOL may only be considered if it is a “renewed” motion, pursuant to Rule 50(b), proceeding under the fiction that the judge is simply reviewing its earlier ruling on the motion—which it reserved—rather than reviewing the jury verdict.

Galloway

concluded JMOL does not violate 7th Amendment because, at the time the 7th Amendment was adopted there were procedures—demurrer and new trial order—that avoided the verdict of a jury.

JMOL & JNOV Standard

A court should render judgment as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue

Where P meets its burden in laying out a prima facie case against D and a jury finds in favor of P, D not entitled to JMOL, even if P does not disprove D’s proffered non-discriminatory reason.

Reeves

Where P meets its burden in laying out a prima facie case against D and a jury finds in favor of P, D not entitled to JMOL, even if P does not disprove D’s proffered non-discriminatory reason.

JMOL & JNOV Methodology

Court should review “all of the evidence in the record”

Give credence to all evidence in favor of the non-moving party (Why? Because non-moving party is the party that won!)

Give credence to evidence supporting the moving party that is “uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.”

Refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence (Why? That’s the function of the jury!)

May disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.

JMOL/JNOV compared to Sum. Judge.

Motion for summary judgment→ construe evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, such that we are giving the nonmovant the benefit of the doubt before a verdict

Motion for JMOL→ construe evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, such that we are giving the nonmovant the benefit of the doubt because it is the winner after a verdict

II. New Trial (Rule 59)

The standard under Rule 59 is different than the standard applicable in Rule 50(b)

Under Rule 50(b), a directed verdict can only be granted if there is no “substantial evidence”

a Rule 50(b) motion may not be justified because there is “sufficient evidence” to support a jury’s verdict, a Rule 59 motion for a new trial may be justified because, in the judge’s opinion, the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence or based upon false evidence.

Rule 50(b)→ judge must disregard his/her own views and make all credibility determinations in favor of nonmoving party; Rule 59→ may make decision based on judge’s own views

New Trial- Aetna Casualty

R59 Standard- new trial is justified when the verdict is “against the manifest weight of the evidence” or the evidence on which the verdict is based is “false”.

Power to set Aside a Judgment (Rule 60)

Set aside a judgment when there is “mistake” or “excusable neglect,” see Rule 60(b)(1)

Failure to comply with a court’s rules and orders may constitute “excusable neglect,” perhaps if party is proceeding pro se.

Newly discovered evidence must be evidence that was in existence at the time of trial but simply not discovered; it cannot be evidence that did not exist.

Pioneer

Whether there exists “excusable neglect” determined from considering danger of prejudice to opposing party, length of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings, reason for the delay, whether moving party acted in good faith.