DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Discovery Motions to Strike Class Allegations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Discovery Motions to Strike Class Allegations YOUNG LAWYERS A First-Round Knockout for Defendants Pre-Discovery Motions to Strike By W. Marion Wilson Class Allegations and Sam VanVolkenburgh Recent developments In class action litigation, success at the class certification have produced conditions stage can mean the difference between a case with a low- favorable to motions to dollar settlement value and a case with enormous liability strike class allegations exposure. For this reason, the fight over class certification is often considered “the whole ball game.” This article discusses the federal courts’ based on the pleadings Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Beaver, growing reception to pre- discovery strike 466 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). But motions, examines the legal standards alone. Discover what defending putative class actions, partic- governing such motions, and identifies the ularly pre- certification discovery, can types of class action complaints that are to look for in pleadings become expensive long before the certifi- most susceptible to these motions. cation fight. Thus, there are strong incen- and how to do it. tives for defense counsel to attack the class An Improving Forecast allegations early in a case. One weapon in a for Strike Motions defendant’s arsenal is a motion to strike the The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure class action allegations filed at the plead- seem to contemplate pre- discovery strike ing stage, sometimes referred to as a pre- motions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure discovery strike motion. 23(c)(1)(A) directs judges to consider class If class certification is the “ball game,” certification “[a]t an early practicable time then—to mix sports metaphors—a suc- after a person sues or is sued as a class cessful motion to strike class allegations representative.” Rule 23(c)(1)(A) does not at the pleading stage is the equivalent of a require a court to wait until a plaintiff “first-round knockout” in boxing. Even a moves to certify a class before ruling on the partial victory can narrow the scope of the certification question. Vinole v. Country- class claims, win considerable settlement wide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939– leverage, and avoid or minimize expensive 41 (9th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Nor class-related discovery. does it prohibit a defendant from seeking ■ W. Marion Wilson is a senior associate with Morris Manning & Martin LLP in Atlanta. Mr. Wilson focuses his practice in the areas of commercial and product liability litigation, with a particular emphasis on acting as national coordinating counsel for corporate clients involved in class actions or complex, high- exposure litiga- tion. He has been a DRI member since 2011. Sam VanVolkenburgh is an associate in the Class Action and Commercial Litigation practice groups of Morris Manning & Martin LLP. He has assisted with the defense of business disputes, tort claims, and related insurance coverage issues. 40 ■ For The Defense ■ April 2015 © 2015 DRI. All rights reserved. early resolution of the class certification sion in Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card There are two advantages to relying question before discovery. Id. LLC, 660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011), affirm- on Rule 23(d)(1)(D) as the basis to strike, Historically, however, courts have been ing a trial court’s pre- discovery strike of instead of or in addition to Rule 12(f). The “hesitant to delve deep into the merits of class allegations, has signaled to courts that first advantage is that Rule 23(d)(1)(D) the plaintiff’s class allegations” where there such motions are properly granted under expressly authorizes courts to strike class had been “no discovery whatsoever.” Smith the right circumstances. allegations, unlike Rule 12(f), which does v. Washington Post Co., 962 F. Supp. 2d not mention class allegations. See, e.g., Ben- 79, 90 (D.D.C. 2013). Pre- discovery strike Legal Basis for Pre- nett v. Nucor Corp., No. 3:04CV00291SWW, motions were considered “an extreme Discovery Strike Motions 2005 WL 1773948, at *2 (E.D. Ark. July 6, remedy,” Lawson v. Life of the S. Ins. Co., A “motion to strike class allegations” could 286 F.R.D. 689, 695 (M.D. Ga. 2012), to fittingly describe any motion brought by be granted only in “rare cases.” Clark v. a defendant for purposes of preemptively McDonald’s Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198, 205 challenging class certification. The focus Recent developments n.3 (D.N.J. 2003). Courts viewed them as of this article, however, is on pre- discovery attempts to “preemptively terminate the motions to strike based on the pleadings. in the law have produced class aspects of… litigation, solely on the A pre-discovery strike motion can be basis of what is alleged in the complaint, styled in various ways—as a motion to conditions more and before plaintiffs are permitted to com- strike the class allegations under Federal plete the discovery to which they would Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a motion to favorable to succeeding otherwise be entitled on questions relevant strike under Federal Rule of Civil Proce- to class certification.” Bryant v. Food Lion, dure 23(d)(1)(D), or, less commonly, as a with strike motions. Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1484, 1495 (D.S.C. 1991). motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of The courts’ reluctance to embrace pre- Civil Procedure12(b)(6). discovery strike motions is understand- 2005) (“A motion to strike class allegations able. The United States Supreme Court has Federal Rule 12(f) is governed by Rule 23, not Rule 12(f).”). held that a court may not rule on the cer- Federal Rule 12(f) states that a court may The second advantage relates to tim- tification question until it has conducted a strike from a pleading “any redundant, ing—under Rule 12(g)(2), a defendant can- “rigorous analysis” of the issue. Gen. Tel. immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous not make a Rule 12(f) motion after it has Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). Such matter,” acting either on its own or on a already filed a previous motion under Rule a “rigorous analysis” often requires a court motion advanced by a party. Rule 12(f) 12. The same restriction does not apply to to “probe behind the pleadings before com- does not expressly contemplate a motion Rule 23(d)(1)(D) motions. Dallas Cnty., Tex. ing to rest on the certification question.” to strike class allegations, but it generally v. MERSCORP, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-02733-O, Id. On the one hand, the Supreme Court can be invoked whenever it would make a 2012 WL 6208385, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. has acknowledged that “[s]ometimes the trial less complicated or otherwise stream- 13, 2012). Similarly, Rule 12(f) motions issues are plain enough from the plead- line the ultimate resolution of an action. must be filed “either before responding to ings.” Id. On the other hand, however, it Rios v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 469 F. a pleading, or if a response is not allowed, is only appropriate to rule on a motion to Supp. 2d 727, 733 (S.D. Iowa 2007). Thus, within 21 days after being served with the strike class allegations at the pleading stage courts have granted pre- discovery strike pleading.” There is no such time limit for if the “complaint itself demonstrates that motions premised upon Rule 12(f). E.g., motions brought under Rule 23(d)(1)(D). the requirements for maintaining a class Ott v. Mortg. Investors Corp. of Ohio, No. Cowit v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 1:12-CV- action cannot be met.” Landsman & Funk 3:14-CV-00645-ST, 2014 WL 6851964, at 869, 2013 WL 940466, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio PC v. Skinder–Strauss Assocs., 640 F.3d 72, *11, *18 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2014) (striking sub- Mar. 8, 2013). 93 n.30 (3d Cir. 2011). class on Rule 12(f) grounds). But recent developments in the law have Federal Rule 12(b)(6) produced conditions more favorable to suc- Federal Rule 23(d)(1)(D) On rare occasions, courts have construed ceeding with strike motions. After Twom- Federal Rule 23(d)(1)(D) is the more com- a motion to strike class allegations as a bly and Iqbal, plaintiffs now are required monly cited basis for a pre- discovery strike motion to dismiss the allegations under to plead more detailed allegations than motion. It provides, in relevant part, that Federal Rule 12(b)(6). E.g., Schilling v. Ken- ever before, sharing more about the fac- courts conducting putative class actions may ton Cnty., Ky., No. 10-143-DLB, 2011 WL tual bases for their class claims. At the issue orders that “require that the pleadings 293759, at *1 (E.D. Ky. 2011); Vlachos v. same time, the Supreme Court’s recent be amended to eliminate” the class allega- Tobyhanna Army Depot Fed. Credit Union, decisions in Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. tions. It is sometimes cited alone, but of- No. 3:11-CV-0060, 2011 WL 2580657, at 1426 (2012), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ten it is cited in combination with Federal *1–2 (M.D. Pa. June 29, 2011). However, Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), have raised Rules 23(c)(1)(A) and 12(f). E.g., Rehberger since there are better options as discussed the standard necessary to achieve class cer- v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-0085, 2011 above, it is inadvisable to rely solely on Rule tification. Further, the high-profile deci- WL 780681, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2011). 12(b)(6).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Civil Dispositive Motions: a Basic Breakdown
    Civil Dispositive Motions: A Basic Breakdown 1) Simplified Timeline: Motion for 12(b)(6) Motions JNOV** Summary Judgment Motions* Motion for New Trial Motion Motion for D.V. for D.V. (Rul 10 days Discovery and Mediation Plaintiff‟s Defendant‟s Evidence Evidence Process Complaint Trial Jury‟s Entry of Judgment Filed Begins Verdict * Defendant may move at any time. Plaintiff must wait until 30 days after commencement of action. **Movant must have moved for d.v. after close of evidence. 2) Pre-Trial Motions: Rule 12(b)(6) and Summary Judgment A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss 1. Challenge the sufficiency of the complaint on its face. Movant asks the court to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 2. Standard: The court may grant the motion if the allegations in the complaint are insufficient or defective as a matter of law in properly stating a claim for relief. For example: a) The complaint is for fraud, which requires specific pleading, but a required element of fraud is not alleged. 1 b) The complaint alleges breach of contract, but incorporates by reference (and attaches) a contract that is unenforceable as a matter of law. c) The complaint alleges a claim against a public official in a context in which that official has immunity as a matter of law. 3. The court only looks at the complaint (and documents incorporated by reference). a) If the court looks outside the complaint, the motion is effectively converted to a summary judgment and should be treated under the provisions of Rule 56.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Pleading Template (Federal Court)
    Case 4:19-cv-01231-JSW Document 4-1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 2 of 30 1 Marísa Díaz, CSB No. 293072 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Christopher Ho, CSB No. 129845 3 E-mail: [email protected] LEGAL AID AT WORK 4 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94104 5 Telephone: 415.864.8848 6 Facsimile: 415.593.0096 7 Beth W. Mora, CSB No. 208859 E-mail: [email protected] 8 MORA EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 9 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 205 San Ramon, California 94583 10 Telephone: 925.820.8949 Facsimile: 925.820.0278 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor Ayesha Faiz 13 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 Case No. 4:19-cv-01231 18 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 19 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN 20 INTERVENTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 21 AYESHA FAIZ, 22 (1) TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Plaintiff-Intervenor, OF 1964; 23 (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981; v. (3) CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND 24 FIDELITY HOME ENERGY, INC., a HOUSING ACT; 25 California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, (4) STATE TORT LAW; (5) CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 26 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 27 28 29 30 {00569825.DOCX} Case No. 4:19-cv-01231 31 [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION 32 Case 4:19-cv-01231-JSW Document 4-1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 3 of 30 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This is an action for relief from violations by Defendant Fidelity Home Energy, 3 Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview
    Initial Stages of Federal Litigation: Overview MARCELLUS MCRAE AND ROXANNA IRAN, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP WITH HOLLY B. BIONDO AND ELIZABETH RICHARDSON-ROYER, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note explaining the initial steps of a For more information on commencing a lawsuit in federal court, including initial considerations and drafting the case initiating civil lawsuit in US district courts and the major documents, see Practice Notes, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: procedural and practical considerations counsel Initial Considerations (http://us.practicallaw.com/3-504-0061) and Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (http:// face during a lawsuit's early stages. Specifically, us.practicallaw.com/5-506-8600); see also Standard Document, this Note explains how to begin a lawsuit, Complaint (Federal) (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-507-9951). respond to a complaint, prepare to defend a The plaintiff must include with the complaint: lawsuit and comply with discovery obligations The $400 filing fee. early in the litigation. Two copies of a corporate disclosure statement, if required (FRCP 7.1). A civil cover sheet, if required by the court's local rules. This Note explains the initial steps of a civil lawsuit in US district For more information on filing procedures in federal court, see courts (the trial courts of the federal court system) and the major Practice Note, Commencing a Federal Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the procedural and practical considerations counsel face during a Complaint (http://us.practicallaw.com/9-506-3484). lawsuit's early stages. It covers the steps from filing a complaint through the initial disclosures litigants must make in connection with SERVICE OF PROCESS discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • About These Forms 1. in General. This and the Other Pleading Forms
    About These Forms 1. In General. This and the other pleading forms available from the www.uscourts.gov website illustrate some types of information that are useful to have in complaints and some other pleadings. The forms do not try to cover every type of case. They are limited to types of cases often filed in federal courts by those who represent themselves or who may not have much experience in federal courts. 2. Not Legal Advice. No form provides legal advice. No form substitutes for having or consulting a lawyer. If you are not a lawyer and are suing or have been sued, it is best to have or consult a lawyer if possible. 3. No Guarantee. Following a form does not guarantee that any pleading is legally or factually correct or sufficient. 4. Variations Possible. A form may call for more or less information than a particular court requires. The fact that a form asks for certain information does not mean that every court or a particular court requires it. And if the form does not ask for certain information, a particular court might still require it. Consult the rules and caselaw that govern in the court where you are filing the pleading. 5. Examples Only. The forms do not try to address or cover all the different types of claims or defenses, or how specific facts might affect a particular claim or defense. Some of the forms, such as the form for a generic complaint, apply to different types of cases. Others apply only to specific types of cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpleader in Virginia Stephen E
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 Article 9 1979 Interpleader in Virginia Stephen E. Baril University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen E. Baril, Interpleader in Virginia, 13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 331 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERPLEADER IN VIRGINIA I. HISTORY Interpleader is a joinder device employed by a stakeholder (as the obligor is called) who does not know to which of several claimants he is or may be liable. It allows him to bring all of the claimants into a single proceeding, and to require them to litigate among themselves to determine who, if any, has a valid claim to the stake.) Although interpleader originated as a common law device whereby a defendant, in a limited number of circumstances, could protect himself from double vexation upon a single liability, it soon became an equitable rather than legal procedure.2 Interpleader had tremendous potential as a device of judicial economy. Not only did it enable the stakeholder to avoid the expense of defending against several vexing claims in separate suits and the hardship of potentially inconsistent results arising therefrom, but also it afforded the court a simple method of avoiding two suits where one would suffice.
    [Show full text]
  • A "Pragmatic Definition" of the "Cause of Action"? Bernard C
    December, 1933 A "PRAGMATIC DEFINITION" OF THE "CAUSE OF ACTION"? BERNARD C. GAVIT t I Much has been written on the subject of the code cause of action in the law reviews.- A recent publication by Professor Thurman W. Arnold in the April issue of the American Bar Association Journal2 brings the subject into the limelight again and it is believed that a re-examination of the problem involved is not out of place. This is particularly true because Mr. Arnold deals with two specific cases, so that something can be gained by examining those cases in the light of the various contentions upon the sub- ject. In addition, Mr. Arnold's article exemplifies the philosophical in- adequacies of his school of thought, particularly as it applies to any attempted rationalization of procedural law. II Mr. Arnold's article deals specifically with the case of United States v. Memphis Oil Company.3 He asserts that this decision arrays the United States Supreme Court on the side of those wishing a "pragmatic definition" of the phrase. Mr. Arnold does not assert that the Court expressly, or inferentially, took that stand; his assertion is that "The effect of the opinion throws the support of our greatest court behind the simple and common sense definition advocated by Dean Clark in the Yale Law Journal in 1925, and later incor- porated in his book on code pleading." 4 But it is submitted that this is simply an overzealous conclusion. The Court was not called upon to define the "cause of action", and certainly not the "Code cause of action", and with its customary and commendable judicial discretion expressly avoided the point.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Judgment Or Settlement In
    EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: ELIOT N. KOLERS STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP Volume 9 Number 3 March 2015 IN THIS ISSUE FIGHT OR FLIGHT: SUMMARY JUDGMENT Most class actions result in settlements. OR SETTLEMENT IN CLASS ACTIONS However, with the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling in Hryniak breathing new life nationally into summary judgment, class action counsel now have another tool at their disposal that may provide an effective means to bringing class actions to a cost-effective and timely resolution on the merits. Monique Jilesen and Julia Brown of Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP consider the possible advantages of summary judgment and the risk of the settlement approval process in class actions………………....29 Monique Jilesen Julia Brown PARTNER ASSOCIATE Despite an unusual decrease in class LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP action activity in Alberta this past year, a significant ruling emanating from the interplay between class actions and With a low threshold for certification, a defendant facing a class action third-party claims (and the tension has a number of tactical decisions to make from a cost, legal, and reputa- between them) was released. Michael Mestinsek, Brandon Mewhort and David tional perspective. In order to manage the cost and reputational issues, Price of Stikeman Elliott LLP analyze defendants have arguably too often been choosing to settle class actions the decision in Harrison v. XL Foods and that could have been successfully defended on the merits. The Supreme its possible impact, all within the context of the recent class action landscape in Court has recently breathed new life into another tool for defendants in Alberta…………………………………..35 class actions to consider—summary judgment.1 Rather than focusing one’s efforts on defending certification or achieving an early settlement, defendants can consider dealing with the action on its merits in a sum- mary judgment motion.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Approach to Plaintiff Incentive Fees in Class Action Lawsuits
    Copyright 2020 by Jason Jarvis Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 115, No. 3 Note A NEW APPROACH TO PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE FEES IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS Jason Jarvis ABSTRACT—Because modern litigation is time-intensive and expensive, a consumer has no monetary incentive to sue over a low-value claim—even when the defendant has clearly violated that consumer’s legal rights. But the defendant may have harmed many consumers in the same way, causing significant cumulative damage. By permitting the aggregation of numerous small claims, class action lawsuits provide a monetary incentive for lawyers and plaintiffs to pursue otherwise low-value suits. Often, an important part of this incentive is the “incentive fee,” an additional payment awarded to the named plaintiffs as compensation for the time they spend and risks they assume in representing the class. But such fees have the potential to create dangerous conflicts of interest—named plaintiffs may be “bought off” with a large incentive fee to give their approval to an otherwise unfair settlement. To avoid this problem, courts must review and approve requests for incentive fees. Unfortunately, courts do not adequately evaluate the dangers of incentive awards and balance these dangers against the justifications for such awards. This Note proposes a new test to better guide courts in assessing the propriety of incentive fees. Specifically, courts should look at (1) the amount of time and effort that the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation; (2) risks that the named plaintiff faced in bringing and advancing the litigation; and (3) evidence of conflicts of interest that might prejudice the class.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Action Lawsuits: a Legal Overview for the 115Th Congress
    Class Action Lawsuits: A Legal Overview for the 115th Congress Updated April 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45159 Class Action Lawsuits: A Legal Overview for the 115th Congress Summary A class action is a procedure by which a large group of entities (known as a “class”) may challenge a defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct in a single lawsuit, rather than through numerous, separate suits initiated by individual plaintiffs. In a class action, a plaintiff (known as the “class representative,” the “named representative,” or the “named plaintiff”) may sue the defendant not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other entities (the “class members”) who are similarly situated to the class representative in order to resolve any legal or factual questions that are common to the entire class. Courts and commentators have recognized that class actions can serve several beneficial purposes, including economizing litigation and incentivizing plaintiffs to pursue socially desirable lawsuits. At the same time, however, class actions can occasionally subject defendants to costly or abusive litigation. Moreover, because the class members generally do not actively participate in a class action lawsuit, class actions pose a risk that the class representative and his counsel will not always act in accordance with the class members’ best interests. In an attempt to balance the benefits of class actions against the risks to defendants and class members, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 establishes a rigorous series of prerequisites that a federal class action must satisfy. For similar reasons, Rule 23 also subjects proposed class action settlements to the scrutiny of the federal courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting the Class Action Tolling Forfeiture Rule
    41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No. 163 Side A 10/04/2019 07:34:32 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\94-4\NYU409.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-OCT-19 14:08 REJECTING THE CLASS ACTION TOLLING FORFEITURE RULE JAMES J. MAYER* This Note analyzes a circuit split over the application of the Forfeiture Rule, which holds that plaintiffs forfeit American Pipe tolling when they file individual actions before class certification has been resolved in the underlying putative class action. This Note rejects the Forfeiture Rule and argues that it misunderstands the purpose and rationale of American Pipe and class action tolling. Given the increased uncer- tainty facing class action plaintiffs, the policy and equity interests that motivated courts to adopt the Forfeiture Rule now require courts to abandon it. This is the first article to analyze the Forfeiture Rule’s history and evolution, to explore the impact of changes in class action jurisprudence on statutes of limitations on the Forfeiture Rule, and to argue against the continued viability of the Forfeiture Rule across the federal judicial system. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 900 R I. AMERICAN PIPE TOLLING AND THE FORFEITURE RULE ...................................... 905 R A. The Creation and Policy Goals of American Pipe Tolling .............................................. 906 R B. Individual Plaintiffs and the Forfeiture Rule . 909 R C. The Development of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 1. In Favor of the Forfeiture Rule . 911 R 2. Against the Forfeiture Rule. 916 R II. CHANGES IN THE LAW DEMONSTRATE WHERE THE FORFEITURE RULE CAN LEAD TO INJUSTICE . 922 R A. Class Certification Is More Uncertain . 922 R 41674-nyu_94-4 Sheet No.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Motions for Summary Judgment and Responses Thereto with Admissible Evidence
    SUPPORTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSES THERETO WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Many motions for summary judgment are denied because the movant failed to properly support the motion with admissible evidence. Further, a motion for summary judgment may be granted even though the responding party controverts various facts if the response is not supported by evidence that would be admissible at trial. When drafting or responding to a motion for summary judgment, it is important to bear in mind what is necessary to properly support the motion or the response. A. Summary Judgment Standard. Fed.R.Civ.P 56, made applicable in adversary proceedings by Bankruptcy Rules 7056 and 9014, governs motions for summary judgment. The following is typical language used in opinions articulating the standard, under current law, for testing the sufficiency of a motion summary judgment. It is appropriate for the Court to grant summary judgment if the pleadings, discovery materials, and any affidavits before the Court show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) made applicable to the adversary proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056. “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the . court of the basis for its motion, and . [must] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Courts must review the evidentiary materials submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment to ensure that the motion is supported by evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation by David R
    Spring 2014, Vol. 28 No. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Articles » Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation By David R. Singh and Gaspard Curioni Lay the foundation for timely, fair, and cost-efficient resolution of a putative class action. Strategies for Removal under the Class Action Fairness Act By Wystan Ackerman Removal to federal court under CAFA requires swift action. Navigating CAFA Removal and Remand Strategies By Jennifer L. Gray Decisions concerning removal and remand under CAFA have exhibited an interesting dichotomy. A Brief Guide to Removal By Matthew M.K. Stein Removing a case to federal court is a technical and detail-oriented process. News & Developments » Potential Conflicts of Interest for Class-Action Counsel Class-action counsel should be aware of potential issues and evolving interests that may arise after a settlement agreement is reached. SCOTUS Relaxes Attorney Fee Standard in Patent Infringement Cases The Court, in two unanimous decisions, held that the Federal Circuit's test for awarding attorney fees in patent-infringement cases was too rigid. Corporate Counsel Spring 2014, Vol. 28 No. 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ARTICLES Effective Discovery Strategies in Class-Action Litigation By David R. Singh and Gaspard Curioni – May 26, 2014 Discovery in class-action litigation is notoriously asymmetric. While a corporate defendant
    [Show full text]