This is an extract of our Summary Judgment document, which we sell as part of our Civil Procedure Outlines collection written by the top tier of U.C. Berkeley School Of Law (Boalt Hall) students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Procedure Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Summary Judgment no genuine issue of material fact (SJ) = no legally sufficient evidentiary basis (dismiss as matter of law) Rule 56 To pierce the pleadings & assess the proof Elements
? May not use pleading. Must use evidence. One major use of discovery is to allow for summary judgment.
? May be plead at any time.
? Affidavits/other discovery items must be the type admissible at trial.
? Burden of proof first on the defendant. Then shifts to plaintiff. If plaintiff does not meet burden of proof, then judge decides against plaintiff as a matter of law (no legally sufficient evidentiary basis, no genuine issue as to any material fact) 1 Note: burden of proof originally on defendant so that SJ does not turn into discovery device (forcing plaintiff to reveal an argument) 1 Plaintiff has 2 sub goals under burden of persuasion 1 resolving all issues of credibility in my favor 1 And drawing all reasonable inferences in my favor
? Is there enough evidence for jury to accept plaintiff's claim?
1 Light most favorable to plaintiff 1 In instance where there are 2 possible inferences, court must make inference which supports the plaintiff.
? Plaintiff may also want to do this: stop jury from hearing some affirmative defense for emotional appeal
? Court looks at all evidence in record as a whole, may not make credibility determinations, must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of nonmoving party, must not weigh evidence 1 But the modern rule is that the court is only required to look to the information in the record which parties point it toward: 56(c)(3) 1 Strike issues of credibility, strike contradictions Cases 1 Adickes v Kress: where plaintiff claimed that the employees of the restaurant and the police had conspired toward her arrest, under color of state law. plaintiff must prove that the defendant deprived her a right secured by Constitution &
plaintiff must show that defendant deprived her of that constitutional right under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory. Defendant moved for summary judgment, but failed to prove that the police never entered the store/never spoke with an employee. Given the evidence, an inference for plaintiff WAS possible.
? Moving party lost because they failed to produce evidence negating plaintiff's claim.
1 Celotex: where moving party tried to show that plaintiff admissible evidence to support her claim that exposure to defendant's drug resulted in birth defects.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Procedure Outlines.