Opinion ID: 2745053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Granting Summary Judgment Sua Sponte

Text: Although plaintiffs do not challenge the trial court’s decision on procedural grounds, we first discuss whether summary judgment was properly granted on a ground the trial court raised sua sponte. As we have recognized, “[a] court may grant summary judgment sua sponte when it appears that a party cannot prevail on a claim or defense as a matter of law, so long as the losing party was on notice that it had to come forward with all of its evidence.” Thomas v. District of Columbia, 942 A.2d 1154, 1158 (D.C. 2008). In determining whether summary judgment was properly granted sua sponte, our decisions have focused on whether the losing party had adequate notice. See, e.g., Embassy of Pakistan, IIS v. Lenkin Co. Mgmt., 996 A.2d 817, 819 (D.C. 2010) (holding that Rule 56 (c) requires the trial court to give a party at least ten days’ notice before granting a motion to dismiss that it converted into a motion for summary judgment sua sponte); Thomas, 942 8 A.2d at 1158 (sua sponte grant of summary judgment proper where losing party “was not prejudiced by any lack of notice”); Tobin v. John Grotta Co., 886 A.2d 87, 91 (D.C. 2005) (trial court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte without giving losing party “prior notice and an opportunity to oppose that course of action”). By granting summary judgment before giving plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to the issue it had raised sua sponte, the trial court unnecessarily complicated the record and the calculation of the time for noting an appeal. It would have been preferable for the court to defer ruling on the motion for summary judgment, raise the issue with both parties, and give them adequate time to respond before deciding the motion. That procedure would have alleviated any concerns that plaintiffs were prejudiced by the manner in which summary judgment was granted. Nevertheless, plaintiffs were given notice of the expert testimony issue and the opportunity to submit more evidence in a motion for reconsideration. The trial court evaluated that motion under the Rule 56 standard for summary judgment 9 instead of the more demanding standards which apply to motions filed under Rule 59 (e) or Rule 60. Thus, plaintiffs ultimately did not suffer any prejudice.2