Mar 16, 2010
The Value of Summary Judgment
One of the toughest lessons a young attorney learns is that the practice of law has very little to do with the practice of justice. In civil litigation this is especially true when you see cases with little to no merit settle for a dollar figure that is more about the economic realities of taking a case through trial than a defendant’s liability or a plaintiff’s genuine damages.
Inevitably, the question arises, “how much will it cost to try the case?” If the answer is, say, $30,000, and the plaintiff will take $20,000, some companies view that as a $10,000 win. I’ve even seen people try to squeeze pre-discovery settlement money out of non-liable defendants by calling it a “peace dividend.” Now that’s chutzpah.
Perhaps the most frustrating reality in civil litigation, however, is the reluctance of some judges to grant motions for summary judgment. For those unfamiliar with the term, summary judgment is when the undisputed facts allow a lawsuit, or a portion thereof, to be decided by the judge shy of trial. The usual context is on a motion by the defendant which basically says, “even if you believe the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, he can’t win when the law is applied, so dismiss it now and save us all the hassle.”
The value of summary judgment is obvious: cases that need not go further are disposed of expeditiously, freeing up dockets and saving litigants (and taxpayers) time, effort, and money. A side benefit occurs when the defeated plaintiff’s attorney thinks twice about clogging the court system again with a similarly flawed claim.
But, how reluctant are some judges to grant summary judgment?
This is a true story. I once had a case where we filed a motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff’s deposition testimony mirrored the Defendant’s as to how the incident occurred. This means there was no dispute of fact for a jury to consider, and the court’s job was to make a decision. Our motion said as much and highlighted the applicable statute. The Plaintiff’s opposition agreed that there was no dispute of fact and that the case hinged on interpretation of a statute. Result? Denied, without explanation.
Next, we did what litigators rarely do: we filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which essentially asks a judge to admit he was wrong. As you might expect, most judges don’t take too kindly to that suggestion. Result? Denied, without explanation.
Eventually, the case went to trial before a different judge where the same undisputed facts were established during Plaintiff’s case. After Plaintiff rested, we made a motion for judgment on the same exact basis cited in our prior pleadings. Result? Defense judgment. Who knows the amount of lost time and resources, but it was in the thousands of dollars for the parties and the taxpayers.
So what’s the answer? Here are three quick suggestions:
One Judge
Cases should be assigned to one judge for the duration of the litigation. Logically, that judge will become more familiar with the facts and issues of the case and, when warranted, more inclined to grant summary judgment. It works well in the federal courts and in the few state jurisdictions that try it. It also promotes the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.
More clerks
Judges need help to wade through all the motions that get filed, summary judgment and otherwise. No one is more important in that role than law clerks. Judges with complex civil litigation tracks, for example, should have at least two law clerks to help deal with the filings. If even a small number of cases get kicked, the resulting savings in judicial resources would justify the additional salaries.
Guts
It’s not easy granting summary judgments. It takes guts. It takes telling a plaintiff that, despite how sad or compelling the undisputed facts, the law does not permit him to recover damages. It takes telling a plaintiff that sometimes her “day in court” is the motions hearing at which the judge is required to rule that the case cannot proceed. It’s also realizing that a defendant’s right to have the case end at the appropriate stage is as important as a plaintiff’s right to take her case through trial. Ultimately, it also takes not being afraid that an appellate court may disagree.
Over the years, I’ve been fortunate enough to have had several serious cases dismissed via summary judgment by judges who had the time and inclination to do so. And, by and large, Maryland is blessed with a solid judiciary.
Current economic realities, however, mean all governmental entities, including the courts, need to do more with less. In other words, multiple law clerks aren’t coming anytime soon and one-judge tracking systems may be slow to develop. Despite these hurdles, the underlying goal of our legal system remains the same: Justice.
In that regard, summary judgment is an essential tool to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the process by which we pursue that goal.
![[Print]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/email_2.png)
![[Facebook]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/facebook.png)
![[Twitter]](http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/wp-content/plugins/tdc-sociable-toolbar/twitter.png)
Excellent article … and honest.
I guess you need to work on becoming a judge!
You hint (without coming right out and saying it) that there is a problem with the summary judgment process and make several policy suggestions for solving it, all on the basis of a single experience, which you acknowledge is not representative of your experience generally. This gives new meaning to the term “casual empiricism.” I hope your summary judgment memoranda are more carefully reasoned than this essay. “Rising star in the legal profession” – LOL
Good stuff Jason. If you can’t get the judges to grant the motions for SJ in this contributory negligence state, what do you really have? The judges need the fortitude to do what is right.
Just because your client and the plaintiff agree on the facts of a particular incident does not mean that there was no dispute of material fact. If the governing statute indicates that facts A lead to decision B or that facts C lead to decision D, then even if your client and the plaintiff agree on the facts in your case, Z, there is still a factual question of whether Z = A or Z = C. Furthermore, even if the depositions matched, the plaintiff may have alleged additional facts in their complaint sufficient to suggest that additional evidence would be forthcoming at trial. The Judge was right to dismiss without explanation. Your motion to reconsider, let alone the motion to dismiss, was clearly ill-conceived and wasteful.
Furthermore, once your case went to “trial,” and the plaintiff’s case was made, you could not have gotten a “motion to dismiss.” Even if you asked the Judge for a motion to dismiss, what you actually got was a directed verdict. That was a wholly appropriate time to end the case you are discussing given the facts as you’ve described them.
This was a poor article. Your three suggestions for “solving” this problem are nonsensical. A) A sing judge, while preferable should not be a prerequisite to obtaining a just solution to a case. If your pleadings are properly written and your testimony is clear and concise, any presiding entity should be able to pick up the case and with a minimum of effort understand the primary issues and be able to conduct simple motions practice. B) by arguing that more clerks are needed you are suggesting that Judges are merely refusing to dismiss out of hand (i will address further in part C). I do not believe that is the case. furthermore, I do not believe that additional clerks are needed or warranted. Instead, I would argue that we need additional Judges (which would come with additional clerks) which would reduce workloads and assist in clearing up dockets. C) Guts. Your argument is unsound because, again, you are arguing that Judges are making the “safe” call, presumably out of hand. If that were the case, then we should see a significant number of interlocutory appeals of those decisions and a significant percentage of reversals.
In the future, please consider your topics more carefully. Thanks.
Rulz and UMDF, certainly you could have expressed your disagreement with Mr. Beaulieu in a more collegial manner. While I pray that I am wrong, I presume you are both attorneys. If that is true, I hope your comments are not representative of how you communicate with fellow members of the bar when you do not share their point of view.
And UMDF, even if judges did decline to grant MSJs out of hand, we would not “see a significant number of interlocutory appeals of those decisions and a significant percentage of reversals” as you so boldly state. In Maryland, the general rule is that only final judgments are appealable. Only a limited class of interlocutory orders are subject to appeal.
This article is right on. As a civil defense practioner with 20 years experience I have had many similar experiences. My motions for summary judgment are routinely granted in federal court where cases are assigned to one judge who often have one or more law clerks assisting them. Not so in circuit court. Rarely are MSJs granted and judges are reluctant to grant them because they won’t be reversed for denying it. Btw, there are no interlcutory appeals of MSJs as one response suggests. I like the idea of an assignment to one judge.
Rulz, he never said he got a motion to dismiss at the end of trial; he said a motion for judgment (still not quite right, but basically that is a motion for directed verdict). BUT, I generally agree with you that the “solutions” are unrealistic and don’t address the core problem — in many cases, judges just aren’t taking the care required to provide thorough and sound judgment. In my experience, however, judges are generally loathe to unnecessarily increase costs of litigation and jam up the docket, so if they can, they will grant SJ motions.
Jason, “No one is more important in that roll than law clerks.” Really? You didn’t catch that typo? I would love to see your motion papers…
Well said, although technically a summary judgment results in judgment, not a dismissal of the action. What is most bothersome to me is that there are certain judges – and I bet we could agree on who they are – that will appear for summary judgment hearing having read the materials thoroughly and with a good understanding of the relevant law, and then he or she will make a call. (It doesn’t always go my way, but I respect the willingness to make the call). There are concomittantly other judges who will appear for the hearing having little idea what the case is about other than that it is not a criminal sentencing. Then the lawyers waste valuable argument time bringing the judge up to speed on the facts, the judge doesn’t understand the facts, and the judge punts because he doesn’t want to parce through the issues. Litigants are owed a better and more consistent process than this. And since civil litigants are doing most of the tax paying in this State (vs the criminal defendants), they are owed a little more respect than they get.
This is absolutely spot on. I have represent a number of lenders. To get a state court judge to grant a summary judgment on a breach of loan contract is brutal, even when everyone admits liability and the amount due. And it only adds to the borrower’s burden at the end of the day, because the loan agreements inevitably have fee-shifting provisions.
Also, Rulz, you should think before being so snarky. I know, pot calling the kettle, etc. etc. But I am always right. In any event, the scenario you describe is not a basis for refusing summary judgment. It is either a basis for a partial summary judgment or an argument on materiality.
I miss the old Greedy Associates blog. There was so much more interesting fodder for snarkiness there.