Questions on motions for judgments on the pleadings

1) P alleges that D hit him willfully and without provocation. In his answer, D admits P’s allegations but introduces the affirmative defense that P’s claim should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier action that D brought against P in federal court for breach of a contract. May P make a motion for a judgment on the pleadings?

Summary judgment

Questions on Summary Judgment

1. Be careful to distinguish motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim from motions for summary judgment. R. 56(c) says that summary judgment should be granted if there is "no genuine issue of material fact" and the movant is entitled to "a judgment as a matter of law." How is summary judgment a matter of law? Does that mean that you don't have to look to the evidence to determine that the movant deserves summary judgment? What does it mean for there to be no genuine issue of material fact? Does that mean that the facts are not contested by the parties?

2. What materials are allowed in support of summary judgment? How do pleadings count when considering whether to grant or deny summary judgment?

3. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court in favor of the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Affidavits and depositions are all hearsay and are for this reason not generally allowed at trial (although there are exceptions). Why are they hearsay? Why are they nevertheless allowed in deciding summary judgment motions?

4. Causes of action are made up of elements. What does a plaintiff have to show with respect to the elements of a cause of action in order to get summary judgment? What does a defendant have to show in order to get summary judgment? When is partial summary judgment appropriate?

American Airlines Case

5. The case is complicated. American Airlines is asserting 1) that summary judgment should not have been granted to the plaintiffs concerning negligence and 2) that even if they were negligent the damages should have been capped at the Warsaw Convention amount. What are their arguments for each assertion? Is their argument that damages should have been capped solely a legal argument concerning the interpretation of the Warsaw Convention or is there an issue of fact that has to be argued for as well? If there is also an issue of fact, how can Am. Airlines claim that the determination of this issue of fact should be taken away from the jury?

6. Why did the Court of Appeals think that summary judgment was appropriate concerning the issue of Am. Airlines' negligence? How often do you think plaintiffs can get summary judgment in their favor concerning negligence?

7. Why did the Court of Appeals think that damages did not have to be limited to Warsaw Convention amount? Is their argument simply a legal argument concerning the interpretation of the Warsaw Convention or is there something else that they had to decide as well?

<>8. Given what the jury had to determine in order to decide whether to award damages greater than the Warsaw Convention limit, could it really do Am. Airlines any good to challenge the court's granting the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of negligence? What would the plaintiffs have to argue to uphold the judgment if the Court of Appeals had decided that summary judgment on the issue of negligence had been inappropriate?




9. P is suing D for age discrimination. P alleges in his complaint that
    D promoted X rather than P.
    D did so because X was younger than P, not because X had performed better on the job than P.
    D makes a motion for summary judgment.
    In opposition to motion, P introduces an affidavit by P stating that D said to P at a meeting that D “did not want to promote old people.”
    D introduces 10 affidavits from the other 10 people at that meeting stating that D said no such thing.
    If P’s affidavit is the only evidence that he has that D’s motive for not promoting P was age, should D win on his summary judgment motion?

Celotex

1. This case is hard. An important thing to do is to understand the rule in the majority opinion by Justice Rehnquist first before going on to Justice Brennan's dissent. Remember, Brennan does not disagree with the majority's rule. The majority's rule concerns whether a defendant (or, more generally, anyone who does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial) who is moving for summary judgment has to provide evidence tending to negate the plaintiff's claim. The answer is no. Be clear on why this is so. If you've got that you've understood the most important part of the case.

2. Justice Brennan's dissent concerns just what such a defendant moving for summary judgment must say in support of his motion. Despite the fact that the burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff at trial, the burden of showing that summary judgment is appropriate is on the movant (in this case, the defendant). This does not mean that the movant always has to provide evidence (as we have seen, this is not always necessary, under the majority's opinion in Celotex), but it does mean that he has to give an argument, not merely a conclusory claim that summary judgment is appropriate. Brennan divides this burden on the movant into a burden of production and a burden of persuasion. A burden of production is a burden to get the ball rolling, requiring the other side to respond. If you don't meet the burden of production, the other side doesn't have to say anything at all to win. Once you've met the burden of production, if the other side doesn't say anything, it loses. But if the other side does respond, then the court has to weigh each side's argument to see which is right. Here the burden of persuasion is on the movant. That means that if the court is in equipoise (meaning it could go either for the movant or the nonmovant on the issue of whether summary judgment is appropriate), it must find for the nonmovant.

Justice Brennan's approach is accepted by lower courts. The real disagreement between Brennan and Rehnquist does not concern Brennan's approach, but whether Celotex satisfied its burdens as a movant. So it is important to understand Brennan's approach.

2. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered in court in favor of the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Affidavits and depositions are all hearsay and are for this reason not generally allowed at trial. Why are they hearsay? Why are they nevertheless allowed in deciding summary judgment motions?

3. Why was the letter from Hoff not allowed by the district court in opposition to Celotex's motion for summary judgment? Is there any reason to reject letters by a witness indicating what he is going to state at trial, given that affidavits are admissible? Why did the Court of Appeals on remand allow the letter to be admitted?

4.  Why weren't Catrett's worker's comp testimony and the letter from the insurance company admissible for summary judgment purposes?

5. P is suing D in negligence for personal injuries in connection with a car accident. D moves for summary judgment, offering as evidence an affidavit from P’s doctor stating that P is not harmed. Has D met his burden of production?

6. P is suing D in negligence for personal injuries in connection with a car accident. D moves for summary judgment, offering the argument that P has presented no evidence that he has been harmed. Has D met his burden of production?