Opinion ID: 3188458
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Summary Judgment

Text: Appellant makes a frontal challenge to summary judgment, contending that it is a denial of the constitutional right to a jury trial. His argument is that because a jury has the right to determine “both law and fact” in civil trials, summary judgment, as a means of final adjudication, is unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment. Appellant is wrong about the role of the jury and his legal argument is without merit.4 “[T]he constitutionality of summary judgment has long been settled” by the Supreme Court. Mixon v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 959 A.2d 55, 58 (D.C. 4 Appellant‟s constitutional challenge is at odds with his trial strategy, as he sought summary judgment on his claims against appellees. 16 2008) (citing Sartor v. Ark. Nat. Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627 (1944), and Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U.S. 315, 320 (1902)). The jury is a finder of fact; it does not determine the law. The jury is charged with applying the law, as instructed by the judge, to the facts found by the jury. Consequently, if there is no material fact in dispute, the parties do “not suffer injury to any interest protected by the Seventh Amendment.” Id. An appellate court reviews the trial court‟s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard the trial court uses to evaluate the motion. See Young v. U-Haul Co. of the District of Columbia, 11 A.3d 247, 249 (D.C. 2011). Summary judgment is proper if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Bruno v. Western Union Fin. Servs., Inc., 973 A.2d 713, 717 (D.C. 2009)); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56 (c). The movant has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, but once the movant has done so, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show a factual dispute, by presenting admissible evidence of a prima facie case to support his cause of action. See id. Here, the trial court did not deprive appellant of his constitutional right to a jury trial because, as we discuss infra, there were no material facts in dispute and appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a 17 matter of law.