Sentences with phrase «judgment motions»

On December 30, 2013, Judge Scheindlin from the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment motions brought by two defendants in this toxic torts litigation.

The motion judge concluded that the certification and summary judgment motions did not raise a novel issue of law, noting that «the relationship between the parties fell within a recognized duty of care.»

These successes include obtaining dismissals of class action complaints, defeating class certification, winning summary judgment motions, prevailing at trial or on appeal, and obtaining highly favorable settlements.

However, while writing his reasons, the motion judge decided to resolve the motions on a fifth basis: he would grant a notional cross-motion by the respondents for partial summary judgment of their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and order a trial or additional summary judgment motions to prove victimization, harm and causation of harm, and to quantify the individual respondents» damages, if any.

So, in the circle of life that is the Toronto motions culture, an Issues List developed at the suggestion of an experienced case management judge to avoid summary judgment motions and to secure an expedited trial of a dispute on its merits, now finds itself confined to the dustbin of «judicial nice tries», with the parties turning their backs on the proffered expedited trial date and hunkering down for summary judgment motions.

Working with Katrina Trask and Erin Chesney, Macfarlane, who's director of the project, compared the results of summary judgment motions involving self - represented parties in both 2004 and 2014, the year in which the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The results of the Supreme Court's decisions on Thursday will have an impact on thousands of summary judgment motions in Ontario and other provinces with similar regimes.

Given the numbers, Macfarlane is calling for some assistance to help unrepresented litigants respond to summary judgment motions.

The reason for the detailed analysis of summary judgment motions in Ontario largely stems from changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010 which were intended to make civil litigation more affordable... [more]

Today, the National Self - represented Litigants project released a report on the experience of self - represented litigants in regards to summary judgment motions brought in their cases.

A new report on the experience of self - represented litigants in summary judgment motions has at least one law professor concerned about unfairness to those unfamiliar with the process.

The central message of the Court of Appeal's decision is that the summary judgment motions court can not dispense with a trial unless it is «in the interests of justice» to do so: ``... the aim of the civil justice system is to provide a just result in disputed matters through a fair process.»

According to Tjaden and Karabus, during Hryniak's first year, judges who dismissed summary judgment motions at the Ontario Superior Court chose not to remain seized, or failed to address the issue of being seized, in 60 per cent of cases.

Justice Brown encouraged Judges to use the tools given to them, namely the Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, to drill down and question whether certain summary judgment motions are appropriate, given the nature and progress of the particular lawsuit.

[24] The Superior Court of Justice has since considered a multitude of summary judgment motions using the principles established in Hryniak.

The litigation was hard fought, with Former Attorney defeating Utilities» summary judgment motions.

Most rescission cases, at least in Ontario, appear to be framed as summary judgment motions in the context of an action.

In its 2014 seminal decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the Supreme Court mandated a «culture shift» in endorsing summary judgment motions as a legitimate way to resolve legal disputes.

[28] Third, judges, who already face a significant responsibility addressing the increase in summary judgment motions that have flowed since Hryniak, are required to spend time hearing partial summary judgment motions and writing comprehensive reasons on an issue that does not dispose of the action.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, recently overturned an award of partial summary judgment in a professional negligence action and provided guidance on the appropriate circumstances in which partial summary judgment motions should be brought.

The plaintiffs acknowledge that «the certification and summary judgment motions for which costs are sought were factually and legally complex, important to the parties and... in the circumstances, they could reasonably expect to be required to pay a meaningful costs award to the defendants.»

[2] Given the directions made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of proportionality in summary judgment motions in its recent decision in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7, in my view when a request is made in an action on the Toronto Region Commercial List for a summary judgment motion date, one judge should case manage the proceeding.

Too many summary judgment motions and too few judges to hear them provide a recipe for gridlock.

In Toronto, summary judgment motions for 2 hours or longer are currently being booked over a year away (yes, a year).

The practical problem in Toronto is it takes too long to schedule and hear summary judgment motions.

I'm not as enamored with the mini-trial format for summary judgment motions.

Certainly, motor vehicle accidents continue to happen, but foisting onto motion judges the responsibility to determine summary judgment motions on the basis of assessing credibility on affidavit evidence, rather than viva voce testimony, does little to instill confidence in the minds of litigants that they have had their «day in court».

A summary judgment motions offers a faster and more cost efficient resolutions of a wrongful dismissal resolution of a wrongful dismissal claim than a trial.

They can also analyze judges on motions practice by identifying the percentage of summary judgment motions a particular judge grants on average.

The increasing use of summary judgment motions to decide straightforward wrongful dismissal actions has resulted in it now being commonplace for a court to grant judgment in a wrongful dismissal action before the expiration of the dismissed employee's reasonable notice period.

FRCP 56 governs summary judgment motions.

In response to (1), the ONCA noted that «this is not how summary judgment motions work» and held that the motion judge properly considered the evidence, applied the statutory framework, and determined the appropriate equalization payment.

Motorola Mobility failed with summary judgment motions in a litigation in the Northern District of Illinois to prove this patent invalid or not infringed.

The use of summary judgment motions to decide wrongful dismissal where the employee was terminated from his or her employment without cause has become the norm in Ontario.

The plaintiffs would have not only needed to have overcome these rulings but were faced with hard - hitting summary judgment motions that could have resulted in dismissal of the entire case.

(Part 1: The Motion), S.C. Law., May 2013, at 54, 54 («After speaking informally with several state court judges, I realized that they are reluctant to grant summary judgment motions except in cases in which the claims are almost to the point of being frivolous.»)

First - year litigators attend regular classes on topics like «how to do doc review, make privilege calls and draft summary judgment motions,» which all gear up to a third - year trial skills workshop.

Because attorneys file summary judgment motions in state and in federal courts, we also test whether there is a differential impact of readability on judges» decisions in these two sets of courts.

After controlling for attorney experience, law firm size, and the lawyer's status as a repeat player before the motion judge, this Article finds a statistically significant relationship between brief readability and the outcome of summary judgment motions.

Summary judgment motions have been a topic of great interest over the last few years, with a change in the Rules regarding summary judgment, and the release of the Combined Air decision late last year.

First, summary judgment motions generate a measurable outcome: granted or denied.

This Article explores the association between readability and favorable outcomes on summary judgment motions.

More - readable briefs enjoyed a highly significant advantage in federal courts, where courts have greater resources to devote to reviewing summary judgment motions.

My sense is that we are seeing more summary judgment motions being granted (although that's anecdotal, since I haven't run the pre-Combined Air decisions yet to compare), but that success is still highly dependent on making sure your case really meets the Combined Air criteria before bringing a motion.

Summary judgment motions are critical tools for lawyers trying to resolve cases.

Although courts do not publish the number of summary judgment motions filed each year, we can estimate how frequently lawyers file summary judgment motions based on published studies.

U. L. Rev. 369, 438 (1992)(finding that attorneys who removed cases from state to federal court «most often cited summary judgment availability as their reason for removal» to federal court, and that the attorneys perceived «a greater willingness of the federal judiciary to grant summary judgment motions» as well as «organizational impediments limiting the ability of the state court judges to issue summary judgment rulings»).

Although the additional time that the federal judges took to make decisions is not dispositive of the result, it adds to the possibility that state judges viewing the heavy burden on summary judgment were and are less willing to grant these motions as a threshold matter and instead prefer to let cases proceed to trial or settlement.112 By contrast, the federal judges who take more time in coming to decisions may put more weight on the summary judgment motions if they are, on the balance, more willing to grant them.

70 Because we drew briefs from Westlaw's database rather than directly from state and federal court dockets across the country, our sample is a convenience sample, and we make no claim that the sample represents each federal and state trial court in proportion to the number of summary judgment motions actually filed.

Most summary judgment motions lose.