Also known as: motion for summary judgment · summary judgment motion · summary judgment motions · MSJ · Rule 56 motion
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A procedural device by which a party seeks judgment without trial. A party may file the motion at any time until thirty days after the close of all discovery unless a local rule or court order sets a different deadline.
Monica Morgan sued Midwest Airlines for breach of contract. Discovery closed on March 1. On April 10 Monica filed a motion for summary judgment. The court denied the motion as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after discovery closed.
Michelle Murphy owned several parcels that the housing authority sought to condemn. She moved for summary judgment arguing that the taking violated the public-use requirement. The district court granted the motion after finding no genuine dispute that the authority's plan served only private interests.
The Hawaiian Islands were originally settled by Polynesian immigrants from the western Pacific. These settlers developed an economy around a feudal land tenure system in which one island high chief, the ali’i nui, controlled the land and assigned it for development to certain subchiefs. The subchiefs would then reassign the land to other lower ranking chiefs. All land was held at the will of the ali’i nui and eventually had to be returned to his trust. There was no private ownership of land. Beginning in the early 1800s, Hawaiian leaders and American settlers repeatedly attempted to divide the lands of the kingdom among the crown, the chiefs, and the common people. These efforts proved largely unsuccessful, however, and the land remained in the hands of a few. In the mid-1960s, after extensive hearings, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49 percent of the State’s land while another 47 percent was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. The legislature further found that 18 landholders with tracts of 21,000 acres or more owned more than 40 percent of this land. The legislature concluded that concentrated land ownership was responsible for skewing the State’s residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare. To redress these problems, the legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967. The Act created a mechanism for condemning residential tracts and transferring ownership of the condemned fees simple to existing lessees. In April 1977, the Hawaii Housing Authority held a public hearing concerning the proposed acquisition of some of appellees’ lands. It made the statutorily required finding that acquisition would effectuate the public purposes of the Act. In October 1978, it directed appellees to negotiate with lessees. When negotiations failed, the Authority ordered appellees to submit to compulsory arbitration. Rather than comply with the compulsory arbitration order, appellees filed suit in February 1979 in United States District Court. They asked that the Act be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The District Court temporarily restrained the State from proceeding against appellees’ estates. Three months later, while declaring the compulsory arbitration and compensation formulae provisions of the Act unconstitutional, the District Court refused preliminarily to enjoin appellants from conducting the statutory designation and condemnation proceedings. Finally, in December 1979, it granted partial summary judgment to appellants, holding the remaining portion of the Act constitutional under the Public Use Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. On applications of HHA and private appellants, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseMatrix Technologies sued several carriers alleging a conspiracy to fix prices. The defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery revealed no evidence of an agreement. The court granted the motion because the record contained no facts that would permit a reasonable jury to infer collusion.
In 1984 the divestiture of AT&T's local telephone business created seven regional service monopolies known as Regional Bell Operating Companies or Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. More than a decade later Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which restructured local telephone markets and imposed duties on the ILECs to facilitate entry by competitive local exchange carriers through resale of services at wholesale rates, leasing of unbundled network elements, or interconnection of facilities. William Twombly and Lawrence Marcus filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of all subscribers of local telephone and high-speed internet services from February 8, 1996 to the present. They named as defendants four consolidated ILECs: BellSouth Corporation, Qwest Communications International Inc., SBC Communications Inc., and Verizon Communications Inc. The complaint alleged that these ILECs conspired to restrain trade by engaging in parallel conduct to inhibit CLECs, including unfair agreements for network access, inferior connections, overcharging, and billing practices designed to sabotage CLEC customer relations. The complaint further alleged that the ILECs agreed not to compete against one another in their respective territories. This agreement was inferred from their common failure to pursue business opportunities in contiguous markets and from a statement by Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert that competing in another ILEC's territory might be a good way to turn a quick dollar but that does not make it right. The complaint asserted that in light of the absence of meaningful competition among the ILECs and their parallel course of conduct the defendants had entered into a contract combination or conspiracy to prevent competitive entry and to allocate customers and markets. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. It concluded that the alleged parallel behavior was fully explained by each ILEC's independent interest in defending its own territory and that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting the decision to refrain from competing elsewhere was contrary to the ILECs' apparent economic interests. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that plus factors need not be pleaded and that allegations of parallel conduct suffice if they leave open the possibility of collusion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the proper standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy through allegations of parallel conduct.
View caseMason McCarthy obtained a large punitive award against his insurer. The insurer moved for summary judgment on the punitive claim, arguing the award violated due process. The court granted the motion after finding the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages constitutionally excessive.
In 1981, Curtis Campbell was driving with his wife Inez in Cache County, Utah, when he attempted to pass six vans on a two-lane highway. This caused an oncoming driver, Todd Ospital, to swerve onto the shoulder, lose control, and collide with a vehicle driven by Robert G. Slawson and his wife, killing Ospital and permanently disabling Slawson. Campbell's insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, declined settlement offers of the $50,000 policy limit from Slawson and Ospital's estate despite early investigations indicating Campbell's fault and advice from its own adjuster. A jury in the underlying tort actions found Campbell 100 percent at fault and returned a judgment of $185,849 against him. State Farm refused to pay the $135,849 excess over policy limits or post a supersedeas bond. The Campbells then entered an agreement with Slawson and Ospital's estate under which the claimants would not seek satisfaction of the judgment in exchange for the Campbells pursuing a bad-faith action against State Farm, being represented by the claimants' attorneys, and assigning 90 percent of any recovery to them. The Campbells sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court bifurcated the case into two phases before separate juries. In phase one the jury found State Farm's refusal to settle unreasonable. In phase two the jury heard evidence that State Farm's decision was part of a nationwide Performance, Planning and Review policy implemented since 1979 to cap payouts and meet corporate profit goals, including testimony from former Utah employees and experts about practices in multiple states over twenty years. The jury awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the compensatory award to $1 million and the punitive award to $25 million. Both sides appealed. The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the $145 million punitive damages award after applying the three guideposts from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore and relying on the nationwide evidence, State Farm's wealth, and the statistical likelihood of punishment in only one of 50,000 cases. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseMelanie Morris sued a newspaper for defamation. The paper moved for summary judgment on the actual-malice element. The court granted the motion because Morris produced no evidence that the reporter knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard.
In October 1981, The Investigator magazine published two articles entitled "The Private World of Willis Carto" and "Yockey: Profile of an American Hitler," along with a shorter introductory article. These articles portrayed respondent Liberty Lobby, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation and self-described citizens' lobby, and its founder Willis A. Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist. Respondents filed a diversity libel action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against petitioners Jack Anderson, the publisher, Bill Adkins, and the Investigator Publishing Co., alleging that 28 statements and 2 illustrations in the articles were false and derogatory. Following discovery, petitioners moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In support, they submitted an affidavit from Charles Bermant, the author of the articles, stating that he had spent substantial time researching from a wide variety of sources and believed the facts to be truthful, along with an appendix detailing sources for each allegedly libelous statement. Respondents opposed the motion, asserting inaccuracies and that Bermant had relied on patently unreliable sources, and presented evidence that editor William McGaw had told Adkins before publication that the articles were terrible and ridiculous. The District Court held that respondents were limited-purpose public figures to whom the New York Times standards applied. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed as to 21 statements and reversed as to 9. It held that the requirement that actual malice be proved by clear and convincing evidence need not be considered at the summary judgment stage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the holding conflicted with decisions of several other Courts of Appeals.
View caseMiranda Morales, a shareholder, sued TSC Industries claiming its proxy statement omitted material facts. TSC moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion after determining that the omitted facts would not have altered a reasonable shareholder's decision.
In February 1969 National Industries, Inc. acquired 34% of TSC Industries, Inc.'s voting securities from Charles E. Schmidt and his family. Schmidt, TSC's founder and principal shareholder, resigned from the board along with his son. Five National nominees then joined TSC's board. Stanley R. Yarmuth, National's president and chief executive officer, became chairman of the TSC board. Charles F. Simonelli, National's executive vice president, became chairman of the TSC executive committee. On October 16, 1969, the TSC board, with the National nominees abstaining, approved a proposal to liquidate and sell all of TSC's assets to National in exchange for National Series B preferred stock and warrants. On November 12, 1969, TSC and National issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholders recommending approval of the proposal. The proxy solicitation succeeded. TSC entered liquidation and dissolution, and the share exchange was completed. Northway, Inc., a TSC shareholder, filed suit on December 4, 1969, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TSC and National. The complaint alleged that the joint proxy statement violated section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9. It claimed the statement failed to disclose that the Schmidt interests transfer had given National control of TSC. It also claimed the statement omitted material facts concerning the degree of National's control over TSC and the favorability of the transaction terms to TSC shareholders. The District Court denied Northway's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether National had acquired control through the Schmidt purchase. This precluded summary judgment on the Rule 14a-3 claim. But the court reversed on the Rule 14a-9 claims and ordered partial summary judgment for Northway. It held that certain omissions were material as a matter of law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the standard of materiality applied by the Court of Appeals.
View caseA party may file the motion at any time until thirty days after the close of all discovery unless a local rule or court order sets a different deadline. The timing rule appears in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b).
Supporting sources