Bias v. Advantage International, Inc.
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9607, 284 U.S. App. D.C. 391, 905 F.2d 1558 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party cannot rely on generalized evidence or speculation, but must produce specific facts that directly contradict the moving party's evidence and demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Facts:
- On April 7, 1986, college basketball player Leonard K. Bias entered into a representation agreement with Advantage International, Inc., and its agent, A. Lee Fentress.
- Bias and his parents allegedly instructed Fentress to obtain a $1 million life insurance policy on Bias's life, and Fentress allegedly assured them he had done so.
- In reality, Fentress never obtained a life insurance policy for Bias.
- On June 17, 1986, Bias was selected by the Boston Celtics in the National Basketball Association draft.
- On June 18, 1986, Fentress began negotiating a potential endorsement contract for Bias with Reebok International, Ltd., but no contract was finalized that day.
- According to former teammates Terry Long and David Gregg, Bias was a user of cocaine.
- On the morning of June 19, 1986, Leonard Bias died of cocaine intoxication.
Procedural Posture:
- James Bias, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard K. Bias, filed a lawsuit against Advantage International, Inc., and A. Lee Fentress in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the Estate's claims against them.
- The Estate filed a motion for summary judgment on the defendants' counterclaims against it.
- The District Court, a trial-level court, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of the Estate's claims.
- The District Court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Estate on the defendants' counterclaims.
- The Estate, as appellant, appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment against it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The defendants, as cross-appellants, appealed the summary judgment ruling on their counterclaims to the same appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's generalized evidence, consisting of affidavits from family members and old drug test results, create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the defendant presents specific, contradictory eyewitness testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Sentelle, Circuit Judge
No. The plaintiff's generalized evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. To withstand a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party must counter the movant's specific evidence with its own specific facts that show a genuine issue exists for trial. Regarding the insurance claim, the defendants presented specific eyewitness testimony from two of Bias's teammates that he was a cocaine user. The Estate's rebuttal evidence—affidavits from Bias's parents and coach stating they were unaware of any drug use, along with past negative drug tests—was too general to contradict the specific testimony about particular events. The drug tests only showed Bias was clean at the time they were administered. Furthermore, the defendants provided unrefuted expert testimony that no insurer in 1986 would have issued a $1 million 'jumbo' life insurance policy to a known cocaine user. As Bias was uninsurable, the Estate suffered no damage from the defendants' failure to secure a policy. Regarding the Reebok contract, the Estate failed to rebut evidence, including from its own expert, that such a complex endorsement deal could not have been negotiated and signed in a single day. Therefore, any alleged breach by Fentress did not cause the failure to have a signed contract before Bias's death.
Analysis:
This case serves as a crucial illustration of the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, particularly following the Supreme Court's 'Celotex trilogy.' It clarifies the evidentiary burden on a non-moving party, establishing that general denials or evidence from witnesses without personal knowledge of the key events are insufficient to overcome specific, firsthand testimony presented by the moving party. The decision reinforces that summary judgment is appropriate when a plaintiff cannot produce evidence on an essential element of their claim, such as causation and damages. For future litigants, it underscores the necessity of conducting thorough discovery to find and present concrete, admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact, rather than relying on the hope that a jury might simply disbelieve the opposing party's witnesses.
