DISPOSITION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS IN INTERNET TORT CASE
This essay analyzes the correctness in terms of its conclusions and reasoning of the draft disposition by the state court trial judge of motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and defendants in the subject case.
The draft disposition should be substantially revised and many of its conclusions altered, especially those relating to the granting of defendant Phishy Corp.'s motions because it is based on faulty readings of the applicable state tort law and employs reasoning which would be more appropriate in a judgment after trial than in responding to motions for summary judgment.
State and federal courts generally employ the same standard in disposing of motions for summary judgment. See, for example, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sec. 437(c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The latter provides that the court may grant summary judgment motions only if "there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The principal difficulty with the trial judge's draft disposition is that it weighs the factual evidence as a trial judge would at trial rather than determining whether any factual triable issues are presented by the summary judgment motions.
Plaintiffs request that their summary judgment motions concerning intentional torts allegedly committed by defendants be granted and defendants that their motions for summary judgment re same be granted. Plaintiffs alleged only that Phishy Corp. committed intentional torts against them not Bank.
The basis for the proposed ruling is that intentional torts are inappropriate remedies for Internet-related actions such as those alleged. Although it is true that intentional torts are more difficult to prove than negligence, it is not true that they have never been applicable to Internet-related actions. For example, i...