Print

[Beerbud1]

What does Motion for Summary Judgement Mean?

[ira01]

What does Motion for Summary Judgement Mean?

That asks the Court to make a determination that there are no material issues of disputed facts, and that as a result, there is nothing for a jury to decide -- that the side making the motion is entitled to a judgment. 

[Capital_Finance_Group]

What does Motion for Summary Judgement Mean?

That asks the Court to make a determination that there are no material issues of disputed facts, and that as a result, there is nothing for a jury to decide -- that the side making the motion is entitled to a judgment. 

I would not get too excited. This is a fairly standard plantif motion. The defense will surely file their own motion against summary judgement.

[Beerbud1]

What does Motion for Summary Judgement Mean?

That asks the Court to make a determination that there are no material issues of disputed facts, and that as a result, there is nothing for a jury to decide -- that the side making the motion is entitled to a judgment. 

I would not get too excited. This is a fairly standard plantif motion. The defense will surely file their own motion against summary judgement.

Sorry your Wrong! it was filed by the defendants!
http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08482329

[112233]

maybe the lawsuit is a sticking point for a possible new owner or investor?

[Fred93]

I would not get too excited. This is a fairly standard plantif motion.

Yep.  Common from either side.  I've seen these motions for summary judgement in every case I've ever been associated with. 

Lawyers figure there's only a small a chance the judge will go for it, but you'll never know if you don't try. 

[xraider]

Something like this may be very ripe for summary judgment. Prosper's settlement with the states and change in procedures almost makes this a lay down on the question of whether these ARE securities.  I don't know what else we (the class) would have to prove to prevail but I am comfortable speculating that the court will NOT be comfortable throwing the case out when these are likely securities and the appropriate disclosures weren't made. 

[mothandrust]

If this "summary judgment" motion is granted, does that mean the judge decides the case in the motioner's favor or could the judge make a judgement in either side's favor?

[xraider]

Summary judgment would be granted, or denied, to the moving party only.

However, the judge may make some comments strongly indicating how he's leaning on the case when ruling on the motion.

[mothandrust]

I don't understand the answer.  Can the judge make his judgment and say the plaintiff wins?

[ira01]

I don't understand the answer.  Can the judge make his judgment and say the plaintiff wins?

In federal court, there is legal authority that a court MAY grant summary judgment to the non-moving party in the appropriate case (I know that, because I once urged a federal court to do just that).  I'm not sure if there is similar authority in CA state court.  But even in federal court, where a judge CAN do that, it is extremely unlikely in any given case.  And it would be even less likely here, because in order to prevail, Defendants need only show that one required element of Plaintiff's case is lacking -- for instance, that the Prosper loans were not securities.  If that were true, then Plaintiffs would lose.  But in order to win the case (as opposed to Defendants' summary judgment motion), Plaintiffs would have to establish other elements of their case as well (that the securities were not registered, that Prosper sold them, etc.).  Since those elements likely wouldn't be in play in Defendants' motion, no court is going to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs. 

But that doesn't mean that Plaintiffs may not score a big victory nonetheless.  If the Court rules that Prosper 1.0 loans are securities as a matter of law, that will be the end of that issue (at least until appeal).  If the Court made that ruling, then the jury would be so instructed, and would not reconsider that issue.  However, such a ruling might not be forthcoming, even if the Court denies Defendants' motion.  The Court might just rule that there are disputed material facts regarding whether the loans were securities, and that a jury must resolve those disputed facts for a determination to be made.  Thus, there are really three outcomes that could occur here.  The Court could rule the loans WERE securities, the Court could rule that the loans were NOT securities, or the Court could rule that the facts are disputed and must be resolved at trial.  (I haven't actually seen Defendants' motion, so I am just assuming that the (or one of the) grounds for the motion is that the loans were not securities). 

[xraider]

Moth, sorry.  The party who files the motion (here, Prosper and its officers/directors) is asking for judgment in its favor.  We, the class, are opposing the motion.  In state court, a motion can only be granted in favor of the person requesting it, here, the defendants.

I went to the court website to read the motion, but it's not posted yet.

[Beerbud1]

More developments:

MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FILED BY DEFENDANT LARSEN, CHRISTIAN GIEDGOWD, ED PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC. INGLIS, KIRK T. HEARING SET FOR OCT-10-2012 AT 01:30 PM IN DEPT 304

[God-Father]

Not very exciting.

[Beerbud1]

Your not a chess player or a strategist! If you were, you would know that some strategy is being deployed and gonna be used by someone  who is not licensed in CA.