A Modest Proposal. Permit Interlocutory Appeals of Summary Judgment Denials

• Author: Major Michael J. Davidson
• Pages: 03

I. Introduction

Summary judgment motlong under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 56 implement the fundamental pollcy of the Federal Rules "'to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive deten-nation of every action."" The precepts governing summary judgment motions apply to virtually any cause of action, mcludlng employment discnmmation.2 secured ~ I B ~ S B C ~ I O ~ S , ~

taxatlon.4

~hlitchellv Dara Gen Cow, 12 F 3d 1310 14th Clr 19931 [Age D~nrnmmafm

~n Employment Act). Sarshs % Sears, Roebuck & Co, 3 F3d 1035 (7rh Cir 19931 (Cwd Righta Act a1 19641, MeGregor v Loumana State Univ Ed of Supenmors, 3 F 3d 860 (6th Cir 19931 IRehabdlfanon Act of 19731

8In m Haste, 2 F 3d 1042 (10th Clr 19931 Ibmhuptcy court granted mnmary iudgment. holdmg that under Oklahoma law perfeefed seeunty merest m stock dld not continue m the dividends)

'Cooper Y Unifsd Stares. 827 F Supp 1309 rE D 4hch 19931 Ichallengmg ha- bility far withholding tax dehnquenclesr

patents.j First Amendment rights: denaturalization.' admiralty,& and civil forfeiture actions 9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 sene8 the laudable purpoa-es af isolating and disposing of factually unsupported claims and defenses,'o preventing vexation and delay. expediting dieposition of cases. and avoiding unnecessary trials when no genuine isme of material fact exists.11 The Rule 18 a practical tool of governance designed to "head off a trial, with all the private and public eapenc-es that a trial entails, If the opponent . . of summar) judgment does not have a reasonable prospect of prevailing before a reason-ablejury . "12

Summary judgment is not limited to an entire claim or defense, but may be sought and granted as to any portion thereof 13

This device simplifies the trial and allowns the litigants to better pre-

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~

-Carroll Touch \ Electra Mechanical Sy3 3 F3d 404 Fed Cir 1993 affirm 3" eummary judgment ~n parent mfringemenr caae'. Accent Deaigna. Inc 5 Jan Jewlr) Deiigni Inc , 827 F Supp 95: 'S D N Y 1993 ,parent holder's allegariani of minngement,

e m m 13 particularli fa\ared ~n cases

Johnson I Robtinsdele Ind School

mendment nghra concerning the conduct of then goiernment '

United S C ~ S v Breyer, 329 F Supp 773, '75 (E

D Pa 1993, "Ewn uith me hem) bvrden of proof placed upon the government ~n naturaliiafian c a m ivmmary jndpent remaine applicable ~n such actianb ,ihIeiOnley \, hiram Linea 8USAl Co, 834 F Supp 510 614 D Mass 1993 '"The standard Ear allowance ai a summan Judgment mofm ~n m admralry C B P ~

LS

sinonyrnous iith that apphed m non-admiralty casea ' ' 8

pare far it by elimmatmg certain claims and defenses from the trial

The Umted States Supreme Court has opined that courts should not view motions for summary judgment as disfavored proce-dural shortcuts, but as an integral part of the Federal Rules of Cmd Procedure as B whole.15 Moreover, whenever a moving party satis-fies its burden under FRCP 56, the "plain language of [the rule1 mandates the entry of summary judgment;'''6 the moving party 1s

entitled to judgment ''as a matter of law."1' Indeed, trial judges have an affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from going to tria1,la and possess the power to enter summary judgment sua sponte, so long as the lasing party was on notice that it had an opportunity to present its evidence

process 14

W d at 434-35 Summary judgment 18 appropriate to resolve ~~%uesof la-,

such as the meaning of amluted UXB Enter, Inc v R u n Leasing Co , 838 F Supp 529. 532 (D Utah 19931iCelorex Cmp T Catreft, 477 U S 317, 327 $1986).%ir also Hams Y Palmetto Die, Inc ,835 F Supp 263,234 (D S C 15931, Independent Drug Uhalesalers Group,

Supp 614, 618 IE D Wm 15931, Heredla Y Jabson. 827 F Svpp 1922, 1524 ID. Nev 1593,. Butler v haviatar Inf'l nmsp Carp, 805 F Svpp 1202. 1205 IWD \'a

511. 913.48 D- Ohm 19931 4"musf enter bummary judgment"). Marrera Gm& i inn am^^ 829 F Svpp 523 626 ID PR 19931 ('mandates'). Kauffman Y Kent Stare Umv 815 F Sunn 1077. 1081 8ND Ohio 15931 1"mandarea"i. Shakaaee Ydeuakanran SI& Community v Hope. 798 F Supp 1395, 1402 (D hlinn 19'921 ~''mnm grant"). Allitate Ine Ca v Narni. 795 F Supp 272, 214 (SD Ind 15521 When the afandard embraced m Rule 56(c1 18 met, ammarpjudgment is mandata-n-1, Cahnra s Umted States Steel Corp , 49 Fed Empl Prachre Cases (BSA1 775, 781 (WD Pa 1985) !CmandateJ'i But cf l'edlan v Explorsfinn Sen. Inc, 876 F2d 1197 1200 (5th Cir 15691 (-A distnm jvdge has the discretian to deny a Rvle 56 motion men 11 the movant otherwise aucce%siullg carries Its burden of prod if the judge has daubr as to the uladom oftermmanne the case before a full tnd "1

IPDrew~ft I

Prari, 999 F2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir 19531. Sibley \ Lutheran Hosp of Maryland. Inc , 871 F2d 475. 483 '4th C n 19691 (Mumghan. C J,concur- nngl, Felq Y Gravas-Humpbeys 818 F 2d 1126. 1128 14th Cir 19871

Welatex. 477 U S at 326. Yu Y Peterson. 13 F 3d 1413 1415 n 3 (10th Cir

15941, Balogun Y Imm~gratmn and Naturalmation Sew, 9 F3d 347, 352 15th Cir 15531 I"gm,erned by Rule 56s ~equiremenrof fen day nohce and am opparlunit) to respondl. Stellr 3, Town of Tewksbuw, >lass, 4 F 8d 53 (1st Cir 19931, Waterbvry v T G &Y Stares Co , 820 F2d 1479. 1480 (9th Cir 1987) ("a dintnct court may grant a mmmari judgment bua ~ p o n l if the loilng parry 'had a full and fail opportunity tavenfhre the LSSU~B

Involved m the malm '"1 (c~talmnomlttedl, Beruto-Hernsndo Y

Garllanee, 849 F Svpp 136, 139 lDPR 15941 [power to grant summaryjudgment me ~ponh),

Triamphe Investor8 Y City of Nonhuoad, 835 F Supp 1036. 1016 & n 9 (N D Ohm 15931 (sua sponte -'ant af ~vmmaryjudgment). McLaughlin v Comptnn,

Despite FRCP 56's laudable purposes and the Supreme Courts strong pronouncements af entitlement, occasionally judges deny motions for summary judgment when summary disposition IS clearly warranted.20 A misunderstanding of the current state of the law, issue and factual mrnplemty, time constraints caused by an overburdened tnal docket, and/or personal bias or individual notions ofjustice may serve 8s the genesis for improperly denied Summary judgment motmns.21

Unfortunately, the law fails to provide an adequate mechanism to challenge improperly denied summary judgment motmna. Generally.22 courts hold that the denial of a FRCP 56 motion is an

~~ ~

~ ~~ ~~ ~

_ _

rule apamr mrnedmfe appellate revm Puerfa R m Aqueduct and Sewer Aufh I

Metcalf & Eddy In?, 113 S CI 6&4. 687 1993r, lhrehell v Foriyth, 472 C S 511526-28 19&6, Larimore Y Johnson i

F3d 709 ill n 1 '&th Cir 1993 Harrii \

interlocutory order that 1s not appealable.23 The pnrnary policy rea-son supporting this general rule i8 to avoid piecemeal appeals.24

Theoretically, on entry of final Judgment, interlocutory orders merge into the court's final order and became subject to appellate review.25 However, most jurisdletions will not permit a party to appeal a summaryjudgment denial after a full trial on the ments.26 Because the moving party may not seek an immediate appeal of the

W O U-RICHT,wpia note 11 3 2715, ai 636. 4 Ax JUR 2d Appeal and Error

§ 104 ai 522 (1952) #"the demal af B motlan for mmmaryludgmenf LQ an mterlocum.

v

decision om]) and therefore not dlrrctly appealable "I, SOP elso Pacific Unlon Conf Of Seuenlh-Day Adrentlsts s hlarshall, 434 U S 1305. 1305 11977) Reed %

Kmdruff County, Arkansas, 7 F3d 808 809.10 (8th Clr 19931 \"not a final &der and IS therefore not uavall? appealable unld the e~nel~si~nof the /me on the mente"),Harris v Coweta Count?, 5 F3d 507. 510 (11th Cir 19931 !"demal af B momn for

16911 ("zeneral ~rineinle that a demal of a matian far summarv iudwent IB not a revierable finafdeca;on"l, EEOC v Sears. Roebuck & Ca , 8 3 i f 26302, 353 n 85 (7th Clr 1988) (Imferlocutory and ihue nonappealable ), .4rdom \, J Ray MeDermotf & Ca, 641 F2d 277. 275-79 (5th Cir Unit A Mar 19811, Vddmta Lweiloek Co Y Wdllamb. 316 F2d 186 14th Cir 19631 A ~ourf'%denial af a motion to reconsider the denial of B aummary judgment motmn ii not an appealable order Pruett Y Choctaw Covntv Alabama. 9 F 3d 96 (11th Clr 19931

9eSwitrerland Cheese Ase'n v E Home's Market Inc, 386 U S 23, 24-25 11956). Sma, Rabuck 8. Co, 839 FZd ai 353 n 55, U%alen s Count) of Fulton. 19 F3d 828, 830 12d Cir 19941. Clark Y Kraftca COT, 447 FZd 933 936 12d Cir 19711

Wonrs-Homdton, 973 F2d sf 694 n 2, United States Y 228 Acres of Land and Drelhng, 916 F2d 306. 811 (2d Cir 1990) Seais. Ropburk 0 Co, 839 F2d at 353 n z5

'BWatson himedca Sreel Inc, 29 F3d 274, 277 17th Ca 19641 rdemsl ai a motion for mmrnary~udgment

IS not subject to revie* once the diatrlct COYIT has conducted a full mal on the mente of a c l a m l . Schmldr Y Farm Credlr Sew. 977 F2d 511, 513 " 3 (10th Cir 19621. Lum v C~tyand County of Honolulu. 963 F2d 1157, 1170 (9th Clr 1992) ~''holdImgl that there 1s no need to ~ e v m demals of summaryjudgment after there has been a mal on the mente "I, Boftmeau Farmera Elevator Y

Woodward-Clyde. 963 F 2d 1054. 1068 n 5 (5th Clr 1962r l"Dema1 of mmmaly Judgment 1% not pmperly renewable on appeal from a finaljud.menl entered after a full tnal on the menta "1, Jarrett Y Epperly 896 F2d 1013, 1016 16th Ca 19901 ('where mmmary jndgment LI denied and &e movant subsequent19 loses after a full tnal Onthe merit%, the demal of ~ummary~udgmenfmay not be appealee'lXarthrop Worldwide Aircraft Sen,. Inc, S35 F2d 1375 1378 (11th CI; 1938) (..a party ma) naf rely on the unde-eloped state of the facts at the time he for

find inch B CBW ewt denied. 113 S Cf 1417 (1993> Jmidi 895 F2d at 1016 1 r"Mer conriderable research, %,e have found no ms; m wh;h B pry vsrdlcf was overturned beesvee eummary pdgmenl had bsen mproparly demed " 8 . cf libfsan, 29 F3d at 277 Ihue become mot)

improper denial, It must face the painful choxe of bearmg the nsk and expense of trial27 or succumbing to judimal28 and self-imposed

This article traces the history of summary judgment proce. dure. culminating with a diacuasmn of the current state of...