You are here

Summary Judgment

Displaying 1 - 10 of 20
Contains
Contains
Format: 2020
Greater than or equal to
Available Online Only

Summary Judgment | Sua Sponte Orders

This case touches on motions for summary judg­ment in connection with Hague Convention cases. Because of the emphasis on expedited proceedings, many courts have used summary judgment procedures to eliminate unmeritorious cases and narrow issues to those where there is a real and material dispute. Rule 56 sets out con­siderations and procedures for summary judgments, and provides that a court may grant a summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Facts

Mother petitioned the district court for the return of her two children to Belgium; they were being retained in Utah by their father after the conclusion of their vacation with him. The district court held a preliminary hearing six days after the petition was filed, during which time the parties provided documentation to support their claims. Mother presented evidence that established a prima facie case for the return of the children—that the children’s habitual residence was Belgium, that she had enforceable custody rights, and that father had wrongfully retained the children. Father asserted an Article 13(b) defense that the children would be exposed to a grave risk if returned to Belgium, but he had no actual evidence that he could present that such a grave risk existed. What father really wanted was additional time to be able to investigate whether there was abuse. Based upon the oral and written submissions of the parties, the district court issued a brief written decision granting mother’s petition and ordered the children returned to Belgium.

Discussion

Summary Judgment Procedure. The Tenth Circuit recognized that Article 11 of the Convention exhorts court to act expeditiously to determine petitions made for return of children. The court noted that a district court has a great deal of discretion to determine the procedures necessary to resolve a Hague case. Quoting March v. Levine,[1] the court observed that neither the Convention, nor ICARA, nor any constitutional provisions require that an evidentiary hearing or discovery be allowed, as a matter of right, in Hague Convention proceedings. In this case, mother had easily made out a prima facie case for return, and father was unable to provide any credible evidence that supported his claim of a grave risk under Article 13. At most, his submissions amounted to a “fishing expedition.” Rejecting father’s claims that he had been denied due process by the lack of an evidentiary hearing, the court held that the father had a meaningful opportunity to be heard and no denial of due process occurred.


[1]. 249 F.3d 462, 474 (6th Cir. 2001).

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

Available Online Only

This report presents the results of interviews of a small group of attorneys who had completed the Center's case-based survey on the costs of litigation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The attorneys discuss the principal factors associated with higher litigation costs, particularly discovery, and they also discuss pleading standards, summary judgment, and other procedural matters.

Jewel v. NSA (N.D. Cal. 4:08-cv-4373).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

In re NSA Telecommunication Records Litigation (N.D. Cal. 3:06-md-1791).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

Available Online Only

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing the potential impact of proposed amendments to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:07-cv-403).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

Available Online Only

Report of a Federal Judicial Center study of summary judgment practice in six federal district courts during six time periods over twenty-five years (1975-2000), to determine whether summary judgment activity has increased over time and to what extent changes in summary judgment practice are due to the 1986 Supreme Court trilogy of summary judgment cases. From 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 861-907 (2007).

Available Online Only

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing the potential impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 56. This initial report examined summary judgment practice in the 276,120 civil cases terminated in the federal district courts in Fiscal Year 2006.

Koubriti v. Rojo (E.D. Mich. 2:05-cv-74343).

This document is among Selected Orders and Other Case Documents that, in turn, are among the Center's resources on National Security Cases.

Pages

Subscribe to Summary Judgment