Rule 56 Summary Judgment

RULE 56 – SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2008)

Complete review of the summary judgment standard.

Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2003)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) that is supported by extraneous materials cannot

be regarded as one for summary judgment until the court acts to convert the motion by indicating

that it will not exclude those materials from consideration; until the district court has so acted, a

plaintiff is free to file a proper notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1).

Under Rule 56, the moving party has the initial burden to establish that there is “no genuine issue

of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” British

Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 1978). The moving party “always bears

the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying

those portions of the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with affidavits, if any’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The responding party then has

the burden of producing evidence of “specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) The Supreme Court in Anderson went

on to say that “summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that

is if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Id. at 248.

Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2000)

Standard for granting summary judgment–differences between federal and California

standard meant that court district court could reach merits of motion after case was removed from

state court.

Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 1999)

The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district court in part and reversed in part.

The court held that in a federal civil action, summary judgment cannot be based on contradictions

between the nonmoving party’s unsworn statements and subsequent sworn testimony and

declarations that seek to explain the prior statements.

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct 512 (1997)

Issue of whether expert evidence is admissible is not an issue of fact

In re Rothery, 143 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 1998)

Bankruptcy court may convert motion to dismiss into summary judgment motion after

evidence has been submitted and all issues have been raised and contested

In re Rogstad, 126 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 1997)

Error to grant summary judgment even if there is no response, where moving party hasn’t

established that it’s entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In re Rothery, 143 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 1998)

Debtor not entitled to notice before Rule 12(b)(6) motion is converted into motion for

summary judgment.

Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp, 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995)

Judicial notice of records and transcript of bankruptcy proceeding convert 12(b) motion

into one for summary judgment

In re Harris Pine Mills, 44 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1131, 115 S.Ct. 2555

(1995)

Failure of defendants to meet burden of showing GIMF as to fraud claims resulted in

summary judgment against them

Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F. 3d 800 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 864 (1995)

No error in granting sua sponte summary judgment for a nonappearing party

School District No. IJ v. AC and S, Inc. 5 F3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S.

1236 (1994)

Failure to attach documents to affidavits as required in 56(e) justified court’s failure to

consider them

Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 886 F.2d 1526 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990)

Summary judgment proper when opponent failed to file affidavit seeking continuance to

allow discovery under 56(f)

In re Bishop, 856 F.2d 78 (9th Cir. 1988)

De novo review of summary judgment

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)