Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentStandingRule 56summary judgmentspeculationburden of productiongenuine issue of material fact

Facts

Only plaintiffs Everett and Bradley were Dobson customers; plaintiffs Lunsford and Baker were never Dobson customers. Everett and Bradley identified short-duration calls and repeated calls to the same numbers on their billing statements and inferred from those patterns that Dobson had charged them for unanswered or busy calls. In deposition, they admitted they had no independent memory of the specific calls and no records showing the called numbers were busy or unanswered. Dobson pointed to alternative explanations supported by the testimony, including quick completed calls, voicemail pickups, dropped calls, technical glitches, and retried calls.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Dobson charged them for unanswered or busy calls, where their proof consisted only of inferences drawn from short and repetitive call patterns on billing statements. As to Bradley, the court also considered whether her bankruptcy filing independently deprived her of standing to pursue her claims.

Rule

Summary judgment must be granted when the nonmoving party fails to produce specific evidentiary facts establishing an essential element of the claim. Evidence that supports only a choice between two equally reasonable inferences is insufficient because it leaves the factfinder to speculate and conjecture rather than rely on probative facts. In addition, a cause of action that becomes property of a bankruptcy estate deprives the debtor-plaintiff of standing unless the estate's interest is properly addressed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Columbus, Nina Patel sued Lakefront Mobile Systems, a fictional wireless carrier, alleging it billed her for unanswered calls. After discovery closed, the carrier moved for summary judgment and pointed to Nina's deposition, where she admitted she had no memory of the disputed calls and no records showing any called number was busy or unanswered.

If Nina responds only that several billed calls lasted under 30 seconds and therefore were probably unanswered, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion held that a movant may satisfy Rule 56 by showing the absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the nonmovant's claim. Once that burden shifts, the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and present specific evidentiary facts. Merely pointing to short calls and speculating they were unanswered is insufficient because it does not supply probative evidence on the essential allegation.