Thursday, January 21st, 2010...9:34 am
9th Cir: Successive Rule 56 Motions are OK
The 9th Circuit, this morning,approved successive summary judgment motions:
We have held, relying on Supreme Court guidance in the realm of qualified immunity, that a district court may permit successive motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity. [] We have also assumed the propriety of successive motions for summary judgment outside the context of qualified immunity. See Cable & Computer Tech. Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 214 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2000) (analyzing grant of summary judgment on promissory estoppel claim after district court granted earlier summary judgment motion on contract claim); Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that, after removal of diversity case to federal court, the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court). [] Many of our sister circuits have held that district courts may permit successive motions for summary judgment. [] Joining those circuits, we now hold explicitly that district courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary judgment, independent of whether the motions involve qualified immunity.
* * *
Furthermore, we have held that, in effect, the possibility of summary judgment remains on the table even after a district court has denied a summary judgment motion because that order is “subject to reconsideration by the court at any time.” [] Thus, the denial of summary judgment does not preclude a contrary later grant of summary judgment. Consequently, allowing a party to file a second motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of suits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the potential for abuse of the procedure and reiterate here that district courts retain discretion to “weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.” []
Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010)(citations omitted)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.