Opinion ID: 553353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Absence of a Hearing or Consideration of the Poulis actors

Text: 34 The Board characterizes the judgment against it as a default judgment. It argues that such a judgment cannot be entered without (1) a hearing and (2) consideration of the Poulis factors. We disagree. When a party having the burden of proof files a motion for summary judgment to which there is no response, and the court determines that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the facts presented in the motion, we believe that neither a hearing nor consideration of the Poulis factors are required before judgment is entered. 35 While Rule 56 speaks of a hearing, we do not read it to require that an oral hearing be held before judgment is entered. An opportunity to submit written evidence and argument satisfies the requirements of the rule. 8 Such an opportunity was afforded in this case and the Board would have no cause for complaint if the district court had otherwise complied with Rule 56. 36 This case presents the same issue with respect to the adequacy of the notice and opportunity to be heard that was resolved by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Resolution Trust Corp. v. Leslie (In re Liberty Trust Company), 903 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir.1990). In that case, the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding filed a motion for summary judgment. The adverse party, First Savings Bank, failed to respond within the time period provided by local rule and the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment without further notice and a hearing. On appeal, First Savings, like the Board in this case, maintained that the court, in effect, had granted a default judgment without giving the notice and affording the hearing required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 55. The court of appeals rejected this argument, holding that the entry of a summary judgment is not analogous to entry of judgment by default and Rule 55 [had] no application.... First Savings was served with and received [the trustee's] motion for summary judgment. This alone provided adequate notice that the case might be summarily disposed of. Id. at 1055. 37 The Board's invocation of the Poulis factors refers to this court's opinion in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.1984), and the factors it identifies as relevant when a court determines the consequences of a party's failure to prosecute or defend as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those factors include the following: 38 1. The extent of the party's personal responsibility for failure to prosecute or defend. 39 2. The extent of any prejudice to the adversary from that failure. 40 3. Any history of dilatoriness on the part of the recalcitrant party. 41