wonkish question about Washington state civil procedure

January 6, 2008 3:46 PM

[Washington State Law question] How do the following differ? Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

Ideally I'd like to see a reference to a source that explains how these differ. Timing? Oral argument? Burden of proof? Evidence considered? I am studying for the Washington state bar, so federal procedure is interesting, but only if you're sure it's the same in Washington.

Also, Washington doesn't have a JNOV or a Directed Verdict, does it?

Thanks. Sorry this is so boring to non-lawyers.

posted by Capri to law & government (4 comments total)

Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is a motion asserting that the movant is entitled to judgment because the facts alleged in the complaint (the pleadings) do not fuflill the elements necessary to meet the legal standard for claim.(Example: failed to assert any facts which would demonstrate intent in fraud) Motion for Summary Judgment is a motion that asserts that the moving party is entitled to judgment because there is no dispute on material facts which decide the claim for the moving party.

Blacks Law Dictionary will explain it all. If you want to know Washington specific material, go to the specific Rules of Civil and Criminal procedure for the specific jurisdiction.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:28 PM on January 6, 2008

You'll want to start with the Washington State Rules of Court. Particularly:

Rule CR 12: Defenses and Objections

Rule CR 50: Judgement as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials; Alternative Motion for New Trial; Conditional Rulings

Rule CR 56: Summary Judgment

I don't know actually know Washington procedure, but just from looking at these rules, it appears that they track the Federal Rules fairly closely. Timing is a signfiicant difference, as is the record before the Court.

In a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (CR 12(c)), the motion must be filed after the close of pleadings (after the Defendant files an answer or other responsive pleading), "within such time as not to delay the trial" and can be filed by either party. In deciding this motion, the Court will only consider the pleadings themselves. As in federal court, if the parties submit additional material, the Court will treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment under CR 56.

According to CR 56(c), "Summary judgment motions shall be heard more than 14 calendar days before the date set for trial unless leave of court is granted to allow otherwise. " The record the Court considers in summary judgment is much more expansive than that on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and may include "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits" filed by the parties.

Judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time after a party has been fully heard on an issue at trial and before that issue has been submitted to the jury for decision. The standard for JMOL is that it should be granted if, after a party has been fully heard, "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find or have found" for that party on that issue. Unlike the the other two motions, which are pretrial, this is based on the record at trial, after all of the available admissible evidence has been presented.

The language of CR 56(a)(1) -- "no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find or have found" -- suggests that this rule also provides for the equivalent of a JNOV.

Again, this is all my take based on reading the rules, and I'm not admitted in Washington. I'd look at the notes on decision, or try shepardizing/key citing the rules if you have Lexis or Westlaw access to find the critical cases. There might be nuanced differences between Wash. procedure and federal, but you'll likely have to dig deeper than the text of the rules for that.

Good luck with the bar!
posted by jewishbuddha at 4:51 PM on January 6, 2008

Sorry, that's 50(a)(1) for the part about a motion for JNOV.
posted by jewishbuddha at 4:55 PM on January 6, 2008

I've found a good answer here: 11-56 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil § 56.30. Very nicely written, very thorough, very well annotated. Available in Lexis.
posted by Capri at 4:50 AM on January 10, 2008