Opinion ID: 2971710
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pollard’s Due Process Claim

Text: Pollard claims that she was denied due process because the district court did not provide her with an opportunity to be heard on the application of Galatis in this case. Whether or not the district court should have allowed further argument is moot as we have concluded Pollard does not possess a property interest in her claim for benefits through her employer. A district court may grant summary judgment on grounds not presented in a motion for summary judgment without due process implications. In Hines v. Jay Manufacturing Company, 850 F.2d 1146 (6th Cir. 1988), this Court stated: Where it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court may properly grant summary judgment on a ground other than that assigned in the motion. Additionally, “[a]n appellate court can find an No. 03-4634 Pollard v. State Farm, et al. alternative basis for concluding that a party is entitled to summary judgment and ignore any erroneous basis relied upon by the district court, provided it proceeds carefully so the opposing party is not denied an opportunity to respond to the new theory. Hines, 850 F.2d at 1150 (internal citations omitted). At this point in the litigation, Pollard has had an opportunity to respond to all of the theories at issue. Pollard argued in the district court and in her briefs to this Court that her claim accrued under Scott-Pontzer. The retroactivity question has now been fully briefed in this Court. Therefore, Pollard has not been denied an adequate opportunity to be heard.