Clarifying Summary Judgment Standards: Extraordinary Circumstances for New Evidence and Rule 56’s Affidavit Requirements

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 23-7645‐cv (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2025). Pro se appellant Everton Sterling challenged the district court’s dismissal of his RICO and fraud claims against Deutsche Bank, its servicer, loan‐processing entities, and foreclosure attorneys. Sterling acquired title to property in the Bronx after the original mortgagor defaulted. He alleged that loan documents misrepresented the property’s value, violated federal racketeering laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), 1964(c)), and fraudulently inflated the loans. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment under Rule 56. Sterling’s motions for reconsideration and vacatur were also denied. He appealed, arguing (1) genuine factual disputes existed, (2) the court wrongly declined to consider newly cited land records, (3) non-affidavit evidence was insufficient, (4) due process was violated by opposing counsel’s “influence,” and (5) Local Rule 7.1 non-compliance justified reversal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed in full. Applying de novo review to the district court’s grant of summary judgment (Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023)), the panel held that Sterling’s conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated speculation failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact (Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005)). The court declined to consider land records first offered on appeal absent “extraordinary circumstances” (Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241, 257 n.8 (2d Cir. 2022)). It reaffirmed that Rule 56 contains no express or implied requirement that a movant support a summary judgment motion with affidavits (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). All other procedural and due‐process objections were found baseless. The order and judgment of the district court were therefore affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986): Established that a summary judgment movant need not negate the opponent’s claim via affidavits; any admissible evidence suffices.
Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005): Held that nonmoving parties must present more than metaphysical doubt or conclusory allegations to defeat summary judgment.
Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023): Reaffirmed that summary judgment is reviewed de novo, focusing on genuine disputes of material fact.
Hayes v. Dahlke, 976 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2020): Restated the Rule 56(a) standard—no genuine dispute and entitlement as a matter of law.
Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241 (2d Cir. 2022): Clarified that appellate courts may consider evidence outside the record only in extraordinary circumstances that affect the appeal’s outcome.

These authorities anchored the Second Circuit’s refusal to admit new evidence, insistence on evidentiary support beyond conclusory filings, and confirmation that affidavits are not a mandatory vehicle under Rule 56.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Applicability of Summary Judgment Standard: Under Rule 56(a), summary judgment is proper if a movant shows “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and entitlement as a matter of law. Sterling’s failure to supply admissible evidence creating factual disputes doomed his claims. Conclusory allegations—especially from a pro se litigant—do not suffice to show disputed facts.
Admissibility of New Evidence: Sterling sought to introduce land‐record documents for the first time on appeal. The court invoked Amara to require extraordinary circumstances, finding none. The records did not bear on the defendants’ state of mind, loan origination processes, or alleged misrepresentations—critical to RICO and fraud elements.
Affidavit Requirement under Rule 56: Sterling contended that summary judgment was improper absent affidavits from persons with personal knowledge. The panel relied on Celotex to dispel any notion that affidavits are mandatory. If a moving party’s evidentiary record suffices to meet the Rule’s standards, additional affidavits are unnecessary.

Secondary arguments—due process infringement by counsel “influence” and Local Rule 7.1 non-compliance—were summarily rejected as unsupported by the record or inapposite to constitutional guarantees.

3.3. Impact

This decision reinforces several critical principles in federal civil practice:

Pro se litigants must meet the same evidentiary thresholds at summary judgment as represented parties.
District courts and appellate panels will not entertain new evidence on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances that would change the outcome.
Rule 56 does not obligate moving parties to submit affidavits; any admissible materials (depositions, documents, admissions) are sufficient.
Conclusive allegations and speculation remain inadequate to forestall summary judgment.

Future litigants should note the high bar for challenging summary judgment and the strict scope for appellate review of evidence not presented below.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A pre‐trial disposition where the court decides a case in favor of one side if there is no real dispute over facts that matter legally.
De Novo Review: Appellate courts re‐evaluate legal rulings without deferring to the trial court’s conclusions on pure questions of law.
Genuine Dispute of Material Fact: A factual disagreement substantial enough that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant.
Extraordinary Circumstances: A stringent standard for considering new evidence on appeal, requiring a showing that the evidence is pivotal and could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence.
Pro Se Litigant: An individual who represents themselves in court without a lawyer; entitled to the same procedural rules but not to relaxed substantive standards.

5. Conclusion

Sterling v. Deutsche Bank reaffirms that summary judgment demands evidentiary support beyond bare allegations, that appellate consideration of new evidence is highly constrained, and that Rule 56 imposes no affidavit‐only requirement on movants. The decision underscores rigorous enforcement of procedural and substantive standards—even against pro se parties asserting serious claims under RICO and fraud statutes. Courts and litigants alike should view this ruling as a clear directive to build a complete, admissible record before seeking or opposing summary judgment.