Goals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 15
About This Presentation
Title:

Goals

Description:

Negate affirmatively, see Kress; or. Show nonmovant can't carry its ... Was defendant required to file evidence which negated an element of plaintiff's claim? ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 16
Provided by: hric
Category:
Tags: goals | negated

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Goals


1
Goals
  • Understand the practical issues of MSJ (motion
    practice)
  • Understand the burdens of production
  • Begin to understand the burden of persuasion
    associated with JMOL.
  • Note slides 1 to 5 are for your out of class
    use we wont go over in class.

2
Motion
  • An MSJ has two parts
  • Statement of Undisputed Facts
  • Supported by filing evidence such as deposition
    excerpts, affidavits, interrog answers so on.
  • Legal Argument
  • Movant explains why in light of the undisputed
    facts, it is entitled to JMOL (no reasonable jury
    could find for nonmovant).

3
Response to Motion
  • Responding party
  • Shows there are disputed material facts, either
  • in the materials relied on by the movant or
  • by submitting other MSJ evidence (depos, etc).
  • Argues that a reasonable jury could come out its
    way.
  • I.e., that JMOL standard isnt met.

4
Reply in Support of Motion
  • In a reply, movant explains why its original
    motion should be granted.

5
Courts Ruling
  • MSJ must be denied if the movant fails to
    establish either (1) there is no disputed issue
    of material fact or (2) movant is entitled to
    JMOL (because a reasonable jury could still find
    for the nonmovant based on the undisputed facts).
  • Put other way nonmovant wins if theres a
    disputed issue of material fact or under the
    disputed facts movant isnt entitled to JMOL

6
MSJ The Issues
  • Did Movant meet BoPro?
  • Did Nonmovant meet BoPro?
  • Did Movant Carry MSJ BoPers?

7
(1) Movant Must Meet BoPro
  • When a party moves for summary judgment and
    suggests that no disputed material issue exists,
    that party must support its motion with
    affidavits or other MSJ evidence.
  • Exception if MSJ is being used to argue a pure
    question of law (even assuming plaintiffs
    allegations are true), then no evidentiary
    material is necessary.

8
BoPro of Movant
  • If Nonmovant has BoPers at trial
  • Must show that theres insufficient evidence on
    at least 1 element of nonmovants claim or
    defense.
  • Negate affirmatively, see Kress or
  • Show nonmovant cant carry its BoPers at trial.
    Celotex.
  • Cannot simply say nonmovant lacks evidence.
  • If Movant has BoPers at trial
  • Must show that theres sufficient evidence on
    every element of claim or defense entitled to
    JMOL.

9
What Quality of Evidence?
  • Well cover JMOL in detail later, but
  • The movant must accompany its motion with
    evidence that would allow the district court to
    grant a directed verdict (Rule 50(a)
    pre-verdict JMOL) in its favor.
  • Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
    the nonmovant.
  • Trial court cannot judge credibility of witnesses
    as to a material fact thats a disputed issue.

10
Even no Response by NonmovantDoesnt Justify
Entering SJ
  • District court cant enter SJ unless it is
    appropriate. 56(e).
  • Entry of SJ appropriate only if movant shows (1)
    no genuine issue material fact and (2) movant
    entitled to JMOL. 56(c)
  • What if nonmovant fails to respond?
  • Nonmovant waives (1) right to controvert facts
    asserted in MSJ and (2) waives right to respond
    to legal argument.
  • Trial court must accept as true all material
    facts asserted in MSJ if they are properly
    supported.

11
Celotex (516)
  • What led to suit filing?
  • Who moved for MSJ and on what issue? Who had
    BoPers at trial on that issue in MSJ?
  • Was defendant required to file evidence which
    negated an element of plaintiffs claim?
  • What 2 ways can defendant meet BoPro
  • Would it have been enough for defendant to file
    motion saying, no evidence supports plaintiffs
    claim and say nothing else?
  • What was plaintiffs evidence in response?
  • Was that enough?
  • Problems (520)
  • 4a
  • 4b
  • 4c

12
(2) If Movant Meets BoPro BoPro (not MSJ
BoPers) Shifts
  • Nonmovant need more time? 56(f)
  • Must file admissible evidence showing specific
    facts of a genuine issue of material which needs
    to be tried. See Bias.
  • Pleadings not enough. 56(e).
  • Summary judgment inappropriate only when the
    issue to be resolved is both genuine and relates
    to a disputed material fact.
  • An alleged factual dispute regarding immaterial
    or minor facts between the parties will not
    defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
    summary judgment.
  • How much evidence is enough?
  • The existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in
    support of nonmovant's position is insufficient
    to defeat the motion there must be evidence on
    which a jury could reasonably find for the
    nonmovant.
  • There is no issue for trial unless there is
    sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party
    for a jury to return a verdict for that party
    i.e., reasonable juries could disagree.

13
Nonmovant BoPro
  • Problems (520)
  • 5a
  • 5b
  • 5c

14
Bias (521)
  • Facts led to suit?
  • What did defendant concede? What element of
    plaintiffs case did defendant attack?
  • What evidence did defendant produce?
  • What evidence did plaintiff produce??
  • Why wasnt plaintiffs evidence enough on the two
    issues to show genuine issue of material fact?

15
(3) Movants BoPers on MSJ
  • Movant always has BoPers to show that based on
    undisputed facts it is entitled to JMOL.
  • So, if reasonable jurors might disagree on the
    question, or disagree on permissible inferences
    arising from the undisputed facts, then a court
    should deny summary judgment and submit issue to
    jury.
  • This is the focus of briefing are the facts
    here like cases where courts had affirmed JMOL or
    jury verdicts in movants favor before, or are
    they like cases where JMOL had been reversed or
    jury verdicts in the nonmovants favor affirmed?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com