Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.: Proving a Genuine Dispute to Defeat Summary Judgment

Introduction

This case arises from a pro se appeal by Everton Sterling following the foreclosure of property he acquired from the original mortgagor, Howard White. Sterling sued Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and related parties under federal civil RICO provisions (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), 1964(c)) and state law fraud theories, alleging that the original mortgage loan documents misrepresented the property’s value. The district court dismissed part of Sterling’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment under Rule 56, concluding that Sterling presented only conclusory assertions and no admissible evidence to raise a triable issue. After Sterling’s motions for reconsideration and vacatur were denied, he appealed. On April 8, 2025, a Second Circuit panel affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

• The District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants was reviewed de novo.
• Sterling’s RICO and fraud claims rested on unsupported, conclusory allegations and lacked any admissible evidence to create a genuine factual dispute.
• The Court declined to consider new “land records” proffered for the first time on appeal, finding no “extraordinary circumstances” under Amara v. Cigna.
• The Court held there is no absolute Rule 56 requirement that a moving party file affidavits negating the non-moving party’s case (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett).
• Sterling’s due process and procedural objections were unsubstantiated: he received all notices and extensions and identified no actual constitutional violation in the record.
• The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and its denial of all post-judgment motions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Kravitz v. Purcell (87 F.4th 111, 118 (2d Cir. 2023)): Established that summary judgment review is de novo.
• Hayes v. Dahlke (976 F.3d 259, 267 (2d Cir. 2020)): Recited Rule 56(a) standard—no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
• Jeffreys v. City of New York (426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005)): Non-movants cannot rely on conclusory allegations or speculation to defeat summary judgment.
• Amara v. Cigna Corp. (53 F.4th 241, 257 n.8 (2d Cir. 2022)): Doctrine for admitting evidence outside the record only in “extraordinary circumstances.”
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)): No express or implied Rule 56 requirement that a movant submit affidavits negating the opponent’s case; other admissible evidence may suffice.

Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit structured its de novo review around Rule 56. First, it underscored that Sterling’s conclusory claims—absent any affidavit, document, or sworn testimony—fell far short of creating a triable issue. Under Jeffreys, mere metaphysical doubt is insufficient; the plaintiff must proffer admissible evidence pointing to a real factual dispute.

Second, Sterling’s attempt to inject new land‐record evidence on appeal failed under the Amara framework. The Court explained that records suggesting a loan‐to‐value discrepancy say nothing about fraud or the defendants’ conduct. Without extraordinary circumstances—and where the belated evidence would not alter the result—the Court refused to expand the appellate record.

Third, relying on Celotex, the Court rejected Sterling’s contention that the defendants were obliged to submit personal affidavits. Rule 56(a) mandates proof of entitlement to judgment, but it does not prescribe that the movant supply affidavits in every case; business records, loan files, and uncontradicted admissions can equally establish the absence of a genuine issue.

Finally, the Court disposed of Sterling’s due process and local‐rule arguments. It found no indication in the docket or records that Sterling was deprived of notice or a fair opportunity to be heard. His Motion to “Claim and Exercise Constitutionally Secured Rights” was dismissed as functionally redundant—courts already are bound to uphold constitutional guarantees.

Impact

• This decision reinforces the high bar for pro se litigants bringing complex statutory claims at summary judgment.
• It clarifies that Rule 56 does not require the moving party to counter every claim with sworn affidavits so long as admissible evidence of the absence of dispute exists.
• It affirms strict adherence to the evidentiary record: parties cannot introduce new documents on appeal without showing extraordinary circumstances and material impact.
• Practitioners should ensure that any factual assertions—especially in fraud or RICO cases—are backed by sworn or judicially authenticated evidence before filing or responding to summary judgment motions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A procedure for deciding a case when no material facts are in dispute. The court may rule as a matter of law without a full trial.
• Genuine Dispute: A real, substantive disagreement on a fact that could affect the case outcome; not mere speculation.
• Movant vs. Non-movant: In summary judgment, the “movant” seeks judgment; the “non-movant” must show admissible evidence creating doubt about key facts.
• Extraordinary Circumstances: A narrow exception allowing appellate courts to consider new evidence not in the trial record, but only when that evidence could change the appeal’s result.
• Pro Se Litigation: When a party represents themselves without a lawyer; courts give some leeway but still require compliance with rules of procedure and evidence.
• Civil RICO: A federal statute designed to combat organized, pattern-based wrongdoing. To survive summary judgment, plaintiff must show evidence of predicates, pattern, and causation.

Conclusion

Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company underscores that conclusory allegations cannot substitute for proof. A non-moving plaintiff must come forward with admissible evidence to raise a triable question. Likewise, summary judgment practice does not mandate affidavits from every moving party if other documents suffice. Finally, appellate courts will not admit new evidence absent extraordinary circumstances that would change the outcome. This ruling will guide litigants and courts in structuring summary judgment motions and responses, particularly in pro se RICO and fraud cases.