Clarification of Summary Judgment Standards and Limits on Extraordinary-Circumstances Evidence on Appeal

Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., decided April 8, 2025. Pro se plaintiff Everton Sterling challenged the district court’s dismissal and grant of summary judgment on his RICO and fraud claims arising from a 2006 mortgage foreclosure. Sterling alleged that several financial institutions and attorneys perpetrated fraud when originating loans on property he later acquired. After the district court disposed of his claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56, Sterling moved for reconsideration and vacatur, all of which the district court denied. Sterling appealed, and the Second Circuit—by summary order—affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit, sitting in a non‐precedential summary order, affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held:

• Sterling’s conclusory, unsupported RICO and fraud allegations failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
• The “extraordinary circumstances” exception did not permit the appellate court to consider land records first introduced on appeal, because those records would not alter the outcome.
• Defendants need not submit affidavits negating Sterling’s claims; other admissible evidence may support a Rule 56 motion.
• No procedural-due-process violation occurred: Sterling received full notice and multiple extensions, and his due-process motion added no substantive claims.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023): articulated de novo review of summary judgment.
• Hayes v. Dahlke, 976 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2020): restated the Rule 56(a) standard—no genuine dispute of material fact.
• Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005): held that non-movants cannot rely on mere speculation or conclusory allegations to defeat summary judgment.
• Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241 (2d Cir. 2022): defined “extraordinary circumstances” for considering new evidence on appeal.
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986): confirmed there is no requirement that a summary‐judgment movant negate every element of the nonmovant’s case via affidavits.
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 56(a) & (c)(1), and Local Civil Rule 7.1.
• 28 U.S.C. § 453 (judge’s oath to uphold the Constitution and federal law).

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in four steps:

1. Standard of Review: Summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Under Rule 56(a), the movant must show no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Burden on Nonmoving Party: Sterling’s pro se status did not relieve him of the obligation to present admissible evidence. His unsubstantiated allegations and speculation were insufficient under Jeffreys.
3. Extraordinary Circumstances Exception: Although the court may, in extraordinary circumstances, consider evidence first presented on appeal, Amara requires that such evidence be outcome-determinative. Sterling’s land records did not address defendants’ conduct or motivations and thus did not qualify.
4. Affidavit Requirement Misconception: Relying on Celotex, the court confirmed that a summary-judgment movant need not negate the opponent’s claim via affidavits; other admissible materials (e.g., business records, admissions) suffice.

3. Impact

This summary order, though non-precedential, underscores key points:

• Pro se litigants face the same evidentiary burdens at summary judgment as represented parties.
• The “extraordinary circumstances” test for admitting new evidence on appeal remains stringent and outcome-focused.
• Parties moving under Rule 56 may rely on a variety of admissible evidence without formal affidavits negating every nonmovant allegation.
• Procedural-due-process challenges require concrete record support; general claims of “influence” or “manipulation” are insufficient.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A court decision without a full trial, granted when no factual dispute exists and one side wins as a matter of law.
• Genuine Dispute of Material Fact: A real issue that could affect the outcome of the case; speculation or conclusory statements don’t count.
• Extraordinary Circumstances Exception: Rare situations where an appellate court may consider evidence not in the trial record, but only if that evidence would change the case’s result.
• Pro Se Litigant: A party who represents themselves without an attorney; they are held to the same procedural rules.
• Procedural Due Process: Constitutional guarantee that a party receives notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.

Conclusion

Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. reaffirms fundamental principles governing summary judgment and the handling of new evidence on appeal. Even in disputes involving complex claims like RICO and mortgage fraud, litigants—pro se or represented—must present admissible evidence to withstand a Rule 56 motion. The decision also clarifies that courts need not rely on formal affidavits when other admissible materials adequately support a summary-judgment motion. Finally, the “extraordinary circumstances” gateway for appellate evidence remains narrowly tailored to ensure fairness without opening the floodgates to new, non-determinative documents. Though non-precedential, this order provides useful guidance for district courts and practitioners in future summary-judgment and appellate-evidence disputes.