Appeals -- summary judgment and evidence

When considering a summary judgment, the standard for review at the appeals level is "de novo" -- this is well established. However, what, if any, restrictions exist as to what evidence may be presented outside of what was originally show to the lower court. How "de novo" is de novo. It is worth a brief discussion on the point. Hanover Law recently filed a responsive brief on just this topic, and I expect the appeals court to issue a ruling in, uh, about three years. However, I thought I would share my research for others dealing with the same topic.

The standard for summary judgment is outlined in McFarland v. George Washington Univ., 935 A.2d 337 (D.C., 2007): This court reviews "the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo." Joyner v. Sibley Memorial Hospital, 826 A.2d 362, 368 (D.C. 2003). "[T]o be entitled to summary judgment, [GW] must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that [it is] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Colbert v. Georgetown University, 641 A.2d 469, 472 (D.C. 1994) (en banc) (citing Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56 (c)). Although we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, "[c]onclusory allegations by the nonmoving party are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact or to defeat the entry of summary judgment." Hollins v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 760 A.2d 563, 570 (D.C. 2000) (citation omitted).

As a footnote, "conclusory allegations" are generally defined as those made by the party him/herself. You can't submit an affidavit purporting to be fact, when it contains only the statements of the party.

"Reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice of evidence not presented to the trial court. Rather, normally when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered." Hahn v. Diaz-Barba, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). This last one is critical, as it is as hard to find statements regarding evidentiary restrictions on lower Court's orders, in appeal decisions, as it is to pull hens teeth.

Do you have a question regarding appeals? We can help! We're experienced trial and appeal court litigators, and would be delighted to discuss your case. 1-800-579-9864 or admin@hanoverlawpc.com.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com
2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 150 Fairfax, VA 22031	Sean R. Hanover, Esq. Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864 admin@hanoverlawpc.com

Motions in Limine -- an example

Although there are multiple uses for motions in limine, the most basic form is to (1) exclude testimony from certain witnesses, and (2) to exclude evidence on the grounds of (a) undue prejudice, (b) lacks authenticity, (c) lacks foundations, (d) lacks relevance, or (c) is cumulative and therefore unnecessary. Occasionally, a proponent will file a motion in limine as a backhanded form of summary judgment; asking the court to deny a party the right to present an argument or facts based on the law stipulating such argument cannot be had. However, while perfectly permissible, the Courts usually frown on waiting until just before trial to make a summary argument, and are much more inclined to find a question of fact requiring the trier to hear.

I've included a recent filing in a multi-million dollar shareholder/fiduciary claim case. In this instance, note the abridged nature of the summary, the inclusion of a chart characterizing the over 400 pages of evidence, and the argument against their witness. The rule that governs motions in limine is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 402 and 403, which gives the Court jurisdiction to include (402) and exclude (403) any evidence. Remember -- a motion in limine is an argument based on the rules of evidence. Most of the time, your motion will be heard at the pre-trial conference, but must be filed according to the scheduling order.

One last note -- be sure to provide an alternative remedy of "caution". This lays the foundation for attacking and seeking sanctions if your opponent engages in improper evidence submission during trial, after having been cautioned not to do so via your motion in limine.



Do you have a question about Court procedure, motions in limine, or pre-trial strategy? Call us! WE CAN HELP! 703-402-2723 or 1-800-579-8864.

Hanover Law, PC
Offices in Fairfax, VA and Washington, DC
www.hanoverlawpc.com		Lili O'connell, Esq. Abby Archer, Esq.
888 16th St., NW Ste 800 Washington, DC 20006	2751 Prosperity Ave, Ste 580 Fairfax, VA 22031	Sean R. Hanover, Esq. Stephen Salwierak, Esq.
1-800-579-9864	admin@hanoverlawpc.com	Charles Hatley, Esq.