Leon Modrowski v. John Pigatto
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6999, 712 F.3d 1166 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party moving for summary judgment who does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial may satisfy its initial burden by pointing out to the court an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence, beyond their pleadings, that establishes a genuine issue of material fact.
Facts:
- Leon Modrowski worked as a property manager for TAQ Properties and Capps Management, which was operated by John and Frank Pigatto.
- During his employment, Modrowski merged his personal Yahoo email account with his employers' business account.
- In 2008, Modrowski's employment was terminated in a contentious dispute.
- Following his termination, the defendants (TAQ, Capps, and the Pigattos) allegedly locked Modrowski out of his personal Yahoo email account.
- When Modrowski eventually regained access to his email account, he discovered that several years' worth of his personal correspondence had been deleted.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 2009, Leon Modrowski sued TAQ Properties, Capps Management, and the Pigattos in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all claims.
- The district court dismissed two federal claims with prejudice and dismissed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) claim without prejudice for failure to allege the required $5,000 in loss.
- Modrowski filed a first amended complaint in July 2010.
- After the close of fact discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Modrowski lacked proof for his claims.
- Modrowski opposed the motion by arguing it was procedurally defective and failed to present any of his own evidence to support his claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the CFAA claim and relinquished jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
- Modrowski (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 party moving for summary judgment, who does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, meet its initial burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by asserting that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case, even without submitting affirmative evidence or a statement of undisputed facts as required by local rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Circuit Judge
Yes. A party moving for summary judgment who does not bear the trial burden meets its initial burden by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. The court's reasoning, grounded in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, is that Rule 56 does not require a movant who lacks the trial burden to support its motion with affidavits or other materials negating the opponent's claim. Here, the defendants moved for summary judgment by asserting that Modrowski had a 'complete lack of proof concerning all of the essential elements' of his claims after the close of discovery. This was sufficient to shift the burden to Modrowski to 'go beyond the pleadings' and produce evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial, such as affidavits or receipts showing his financial loss exceeded the statutory minimum of $5,000 for his Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim. Modrowski's decision to rest on his complaint and attack procedural deficiencies in the defendants' motion, such as the failure to file a Local Rule 56.1 statement, was inadequate to defeat summary judgment. The court noted that enforcement of local rules is at the district court's discretion and a failure to comply is not automatically fatal to a motion.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a stark reminder of the principles established in the Celotex trilogy regarding summary judgment. It reinforces that a non-moving party cannot simply rest on its pleadings or attack procedural flaws in a summary judgment motion once the movant has pointed to a lack of evidence. The case illustrates the potentially harsh consequences for litigants who misunderstand their burden to produce affirmative evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact. It clarifies that a 'no evidence' motion for summary judgment is a valid strategy that effectively forces the non-movant to demonstrate that they have a triable case, solidifying the role of summary judgment as a mechanism for weeding out factually unsupported claims before trial.
