Also known as: summary judgment motions · motion for summary judgment · motions for summary judgment · SJ motion · Rule 56 motion
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A procedural device by which a party seeks judgment without trial. The movant must show through the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Simon Stern completed all discovery in his contract dispute with Synergy Systems on March 1. He filed his summary judgment motion on March 20. The court accepted the motion because it fell within the permitted window after discovery closed.
Sarah Sullivan alleged an antitrust conspiracy against Starlight Media in her complaint. Starlight Media moved for summary judgment after discovery revealed only parallel conduct without evidence of agreement. The court granted the motion because the record contained no facts supporting a conspiracy claim.
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 caseSamuel Soto sought punitive damages from Southland Foods after a product liability incident. Southland Foods moved for summary judgment on the punitive claim. The court denied the motion after reviewing evidence that the company's conduct showed reckless disregard for safety standards.
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 caseStella Shapiro sued Sapphire Technologies for employment discrimination. Sapphire Technologies moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion because the record showed conflicting evidence on whether the termination was motivated by discriminatory intent.
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 caseSteven Silva alleged constitutional violations by federal agents in his complaint. The agents moved for summary judgment after limited discovery. The court granted the motion because the allegations lacked sufficient factual content to support a plausible claim.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI dedicated more than 4,000 special agents and 3,000 support personnel to an investigation that by September 18 had received more than 96,000 tips or potential leads from the public. In the ensuing months the FBI questioned more than 1,000 people with suspected links to the attacks or to terrorism in general. Of those individuals, 762 were held on immigration charges, and a 184-member subset of that group was deemed to be of high interest to the investigation and held under restrictive conditions designed to prevent communication with the general prison population or the outside world. Javaid Iqbal, a citizen of Pakistan and a Muslim, was arrested in November 2001 by agents of the FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service on charges of fraud in relation to identification documents and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Pending trial, he was housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. In January 2002 he was designated a person of high interest and placed in the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit, where detainees were kept in lock-down 23 hours a day and spent the remaining hour outside their cells in handcuffs and leg irons accompanied by a four-officer escort. Iqbal pleaded guilty to the criminal charges, served a term of imprisonment, and was removed to Pakistan. He then filed a Bivens action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against 34 current and former federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, as well as 19 John Doe corrections officers. The complaint concentrated on his treatment while confined to the ADMAX SHU and alleged that petitioners designated him a person of high interest on account of his race, religion, or national origin. The complaint alleged that the FBI under Mueller’s direction arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of the September 11 investigation, that the policy of holding post-September-11 detainees in highly restrictive conditions until cleared by the FBI was approved by Ashcroft and Mueller in discussions in the weeks after September 11, and that petitioners each knew of, condoned, and willfully agreed to subject Iqbal to harsh conditions solely on account of his religion, race, and national origin. It named Ashcroft as the principal architect of the policy and identified Mueller as instrumental in its adoption, promulgation, and implementation. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state sufficient allegations showing their own involvement in clearly established unconstitutional conduct. The District Court denied the motion. Petitioners brought an interlocutory appeal, and while the appeal was pending the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSantiago Sanchez sued a nonresident defendant in state court. The defendant moved for summary judgment asserting lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion after finding that the defendant's contacts with the forum satisfied due process requirements.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
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. This timing rule prevents premature filings before the parties have developed the factual record through discovery.
Supporting sources