What is Summary Judgement?

[gkisystems]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Chicago Federal Court.

My lawyer filed a motion for summary judgment in my section 1983 civil rights claim, as did the other side. Both sides only argued about liability, not damages.

The judge made his decision that the other side had liability to me, but because I did not present any evidence of damages, he awarded me one dollar.

Did the judge make a mistake because he made a decision on an issue that he was not asked to make a decision on?

The opposing side likes the judge's decision and states that because I did not specifically mention my summary judgment motion was being limited to the issue of liability only, and I did not inform the court that I was seeking to bifurcate the issue of damages. Therefore, my summary judgment motion means I am seeking summary judgment on the entire claim (both liability and damages).

My lawyer states that I do not have any burden to show how my motion for summary judgment is limited (to liability only and not damages) and that the issue of damages are for a fact-finder after trial (jury). My lawyer also states that neither party brought up the issue of damages in the briefs, although they are in dispute and cited Brown vs. US in that both parties were surprised by the award of one dollar.

So, who is right as a matter of law?

Update:

I also found this case law, but it is not part of my brief...

"'The function of summary judgment is to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a formal trial.'" Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 37, 42, 515 P.2d 154 (1973) [*4] (quoting Leland v. Frogge, 71 Wn.2d 197, 200, 427 P.2d 724 (1967)). "Summary judgment is a procedure for testing the existence of a party's evidence." Cofer v. County of Pierce, 8 Wn. App. 258, 261-62, 505 P.2d 476 (1973)

 

[Tex78704]

...My lawyer states that I do not have any burden to show how my motion for summary judgment is limited (to liability only and not damages) and that the issue of damages are for a fact-finder after trial (jury). My lawyer also states that neither party brought up the issue of damages in the briefs, although they are in dispute and cited Brown vs. US in that both parties were surprised by the award of one dollar.

So, who is right as a matter of law?...

Depends.

On how the RELIEF requested was worded in your motion for summary judgment and addressed in the hearing. And that is something that your attorney would know and should be able to challenge if the pleadings support your position.

A movant may ask (ie; Relief requested) the court to dispose of "any part" of a case and render a partial summary judgment FRCP 56(a). Although a motion for summary judgment should be directed at an entire claim or defense, FRCP 56(c) provides for granting summary judgment on the liability even if damages cannot be resolved as a matter of law.

 

[gkisystems]

Depends.

On how the RELIEF requested was worded in your motion for summary judgment and addressed in the hearing. And that is something that your attorney would know and should be able to challenge if the pleadings support your position.

A movant may ask (ie; Relief requested) the court to dispose of "any part" of a case and render a partial summary judgment FRCP 56(a). Although a motion for summary judgment should be directed at an entire claim or defense, FRCP 56(c) provides for granting summary judgment on the liability even if damages cannot be resolved as a matter of law.

Relief was requested as follows:

"Plantiff requests that this Court grant him summary judgment on Count I of his complaint alleging unreasonable seizure and deny Defendant's Joint Motion for Summary Judgment."

As you can see, there is nothing here that specifically limits the summary judgment to liability alone by saying "hey dude - this is limited."
According to FRCP 56(d)(2):

An interlocutory summary judgment may be rendered on liability alone, even if there is a genuine issue on the amount of damages.

So, two questions:

1. Does the relief requested specifically have to limit relief to liability only if relief is not requested for damages?
2. Am I required to present evidence as to the damages for a summary judgment motion?

I ask question #2 because I am wondering if not presenting evidence of damages is considered a procedure failure or not.

 

[Tex78704]

An interlocutory judgment is where the judgment is not final and there are still issues to be resolved, and would have been done if the judge granted a partial summary judgment.

If the judge ruled this as a final judgment disposing of all issues, which is what appears to have been done, then it may need to be addressed in post-judgment motions, or on appeal, or not at all, depending upon when the judgment was signed.

No one here can answer these questions better than the attorney handling your case.

 

[gkisystems]

An interlocutory judgment is where the judgment is not final and there are still issues to be resolved, and would have been done if the judge granted a partial summary judgment.

If the judge ruled this as a final judgment disposing of all issues, which is what appears to have been done, then it may need to be addressed in post-judgment motions, or on appeal, or not at all, depending upon when the judgment was signed.

No one here can answer these questions better than the attorney handling your case.

The judge ruled my case as "terminated" after he awarded me $1 for nominal damages. After reviewing the facts of this case, I feel a little better:

PATTERSON v. COUGHLIN, 905 F.2d 564 (2nd Cir. 1990)

Finally, as to this issue, the State was entitled to trial by
jury. Patterson had requested a jury trial in his complaint, and
defendants were entitled to rely on that request to preserve
their own right to a jury trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(a) (after
jury trial properly demanded, trial must be by jury unless all
parties stipulate to the contrary in writing or on the record);
Gargiulo v. Delsole, 769 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir. 1985); Rosen v.
Dick, 639 F.2d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1980); State Mutual Life
Assurance Co. of America v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 581 F.2d 1045,
1050 (2d Cir. 1978); 5 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 38.40,
at 38-381 (2d ed. 1988); id. ¶ 38.45, at 38-419 to 38-420. There
being no indication in the record of any waiver of the right to
jury trial, the issue of damages could not properly be decided by the
court.