John Deere Co. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
John Deere Co. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
75 citation events (51 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Latory Jones v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 17-30955 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1192 Limiting summary judgment to grounds advanced by moving party32 citing cases“a district court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte on grounds not requested by the moving party.”6 citing courts quote it · 31 listed here
  • Latory Jones v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 17-30955 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018).unpublished
    (This court has strictly applied the procedural safeguards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and has therefore held that a district court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte on grounds not requested by the moving party.)
  • Wooten, No. 3:23-cv-00368 (M.D. La. Feb. 4, 2026).
    Co., 364 F.3d 624, 632 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting, in turn, John Deere Co. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987)). 85 Rec.
  • SH Tobacco & Cigars LLC v. Masters 96th LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00781 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2024).
    Nat’l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987)).
  • Bouton v. Manson Constr. Co, 705 F. Supp. 3d 622 (W.D. La. 2023).published
    Molina v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 20 F.4th 166, 169 (5th Cir. 2021), citing John Deere Co. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987).
  • Milteer v. Navarro Cnty. Texas, No. 3:21-cv-02941 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2023).
    Nat’l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987)).
  • Molina v. Home Depot, 20 F.4th 166 (5th Cir. 2021).published
    John Deer Co. v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987).
  • Armas v. St. Augustine Old Roman Catholic Church, No. 3:17-cv-02383, 2019 WL 2929616 (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2019).
    Nat’l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987))), aff’d, 277 Fed.
  • Oxford House, Inc. v. Browning, 266 F. Supp. 3d 896 (M.D. La. 2017).published
    Nat'l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir. 1987); Elwakin v. Target Media Partners Operating Co., 901 F.Supp.2d 730, 745 (E.D.
  • Se. Louisiana Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Louisiana ex rel. Jindal, 107 F. Supp. 3d 584 (E.D. La. 2015).published
    Nat'l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir.1987). . 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
  • Jerald Dorsey v. Thomas Relf, 559 F. App'x 401 (5th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    Nat’l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1192 (5th Cir.1987).
Show 21 more citing cases
At page 1191 Reversing summary judgment when notice is insufficient11 citing casesreversing a grant of summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had not presented evidence of damages, where defendant’s motion raised only a res judicata defense, and explaining that “[s]ince the district court’s grant of summary judgment was not based on grounds advanced by [defendant], and n…2 citing courts put it this way
  • Tremago, L.P. v. Euler-Hermes Am. Credit Indem. Co., 602 F. App'x 981 (5th Cir. 2015).unpublished
    This court has reversed summary judgment where a moving party’s memorandum failed to raise a point “in a manner that would be sufficient to put the [the non-moving party] on notice that failure to present evidence of [the elements of each…
  • Scott Lemoine v. Elizabeth Wolfe, 575 F. App'x 449 (5th Cir. 2014).unpublished 3 cites
    Nat'l Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1987). 10 .
  • Fernando Iturralde v. Shaw Grp., Inc., 512 F. App'x 430 (5th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    (summary judgment was not appropriate where the nonmoving party failed to present evidence of damages because the district court relied on grounds *436 not advanced by the moving party, and the nonmoving party had no opp…)
  • Top Rank, Inc. v. Ortiz (In Re Ortiz), 400 B.R. 755 (C.D. Cal. 2009).published
    (reversing a grant of summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had not presented evidence of damages, where defendant’s motion raised only a res judicata defense, and explaining that “[s]ince the district court’s g…)
  • Horak v. Glazer's Whlse Drug, No. 06-10854 (5th Cir. Mar. 6, 2007).unpublished
    Nat’l Bank of Ford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir. 1987), nor is this a case where the moving party raised a new argument for the first time in its reply brief, cf. Senior Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. of First Republic Bank Corp. v. FDIC,…
  • Andrea Doreen Ltd. v. Bldg. Material Local Union 282, 299 F. Supp. 2d 129 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).published
    (holding that summary judgment on grounds not urged by movant and without adequate notice to non-movant was improper)
  • Williams v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 520, 298 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2002).published
    Bank, Stafford, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1987), we held that the district court may not grant summary judgment based on insufficiency of the evidence where that issue was not raised in the motion for summary judgment and the nonmovi…
  • Zachary v. Dow Corning Corp., 884 F. Supp. 1061 (M.D. La. 1995).published
    Evans v. United Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 942 (5th Cir.1993); Scott v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 961 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir.1992); John Deere Co. v. American National Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1987).
  • Mildred J. Perry v. State of Indiana, Evansville State Hosp., & Bruce Miller, 16 F.3d 1225 (7th Cir. 1994).published
    See Malhotra v. Cotter & Co., 885 F.2d 1305, 1310 (7th Cir.1989); John Deer Co. v. American Nat'l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1987).
  • Robert Evans & Robert Evans Tours, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., & United Air Lines Serv. Corp., 986 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); John Deere Co. v. American Nat’l Bank, 809 F.2d 1190, 1191-92 (5th Cir.1987).
Show 1 more citing case
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JOHN DEERE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, STAFFORD, Defendant-Appellee
86-2830.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 17, 1987.
Published opinion
809 F.2d 1190
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2201
Vikram Chandhok, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, Dallas, Tex., George M. Kryder, III, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Steven A. Leyh, Sellers & Berg, Warren W. Boone, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Gee, Reavley, Jolly.
Cited by 56 opinions  |  Published
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

In this case, the plaintiff, John Deere Company, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, American National Bank. Because the district court granted summary judgment on grounds not urged upon it by the defendant and for which the plaintiff did not have adequate notice, we reverse.

I

In 1983 and 1984, the John Deere Company (“John Deere”) sold on credit to Mack Adams of Winnie, Texas, farm equipment (“the collateral”) and retained a purchase-money security interest. John Deere filed timely U.C.C. Financing Statements with the County Clerk of Chambers County, Texas. Later, the American National Bank (“the Bank”) made loans to Mack Adams, members of his family, and associated business entities, for which it retained a junior security interest in the collateral and other Adams property.

When Adams apparently defaulted on his obligations to the Bank, the Bank seized the collateral, instituted judicial foreclosure proceedings in state court, and sold the collateral at a judicially ordered auction. The parties dispute whether John Deere received notice of the foreclosure sale.

Allegedly learning of the foreclosure and sale after the fact, John Deere demanded that the Bank pay it the value of the collateral that had been sold. The Bank refused, and this lawsuit followed.

John Deere sued the Bank in federal court, alleging that the Bank, a second lienholder on the collateral, had foreclosed on, and sold, the collateral without notice to John Deere. John Deere sought damages for conversion and a declaratory judgment confirming its superior interest in the collateral.

The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting brief, asserting the defense that it had sold the collateral pursuant to a Texas state court judicial sale (to which John Deere was not a party) and that the state-court judgment operated as res judicata against John Deere. John Deere responded that res judicata was inapplicable as a matter of law and that it had raised the material fact issue of whether the Bank had given John Deere notice of the sale.

On September 19, 1986, the district court issued a memorandum order and entered final judgment. The court first held that John Deere’s security interest in the collateral was superior to the Bank’s, and expressly declined to reach the Bank’s res judicata argument. Instead, the court granted summary judgment for the Bank on a theory that the Bank had not argued: that John Deere had not presented any evidence that it had suffered damages arising from the Bank’s actions. The district court, citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), for the proposition that summary judgment was appropriate in the absence of critical evidence, entered judgment that John Deere take nothing, and that each party bear its own costs.

II

Our examination of the Bank’s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment persuades us that the Bank did not raise failure to demonstrate damages as a basis for summary judgment. Although the Bank’s memorandum states the position that John Deere’s interests were unaffected by the foreclosure sale, this point is not argued as a ground for summary judgment. In any event, this point certainly was not raised by the Bank in a manner that would' be sufficient to put John Deere on notice that failure to present evidence of damages could be grounds for summary judgment. The Bank’s brief in[*1192] support of its summary judgment motion relies solely on a res judicata argument.

Since the district court relied on grounds not advanced by the moving party as a basis for granting summary judgment, and did not give proper notice to the Bank before granting judgment on such grounds, its judgment cannot be upheld on appeal. [1] This court has strictly applied the procedural safeguards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 [2] and has therefore held that a district court may not grant summary judgment sua sponte on grounds not requested by the moving party. Capital Films Corp. v. Charles Fries Productions, 628 F.2d 387, 390-91 (5th Cir.1980); Sharlitt v. Gorinstein, 535 F.2d 282, 283 (5th Cir.1976). Since the district court’s grant of summary judgment was not based on grounds advanced by the Bank, and no opportunity was given to John Deere to respond, we must reverse. [3]

Ill

The district court’s judgment is therefore reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

1

. In addition to this procedural defect, there appear to be other reasons why summary judgment may have been inappropriate. If the district court based its ruling on an understanding that the Bank was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law (because John Deere’s prior lien was not extinguished by the judicial sale), then its ruling is subject to some question. As John Deere points out, the Texas courts and the Texas Business and Commerce Code allow recovery by a first lienholder against a second lienholder who sells secured property without notice to the first lienholder. See Barr v. White Oak State Bank, 677 S.W.2d 707, 710-11 (Tex. App.1984). Furthermore, summary judgment would appear to have been inappropriate because there remained a disputed issue as to whether it was factually possible for John Deere to follow the collateral so as to assert its first recorded liens against the collateral.

2

. Rule 56(c) provides that the nonmoving party must be served with the motion at least ten days prior to the time fixed for the hearing.

Prior decisions have stressed the importance of providing the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond and to develop the record in opposition to requested summary judgment. Conley v. Board of Trustees of Grenada County Hospital, 707 F.2d 175, 179 n. 2 (5th Cir.1983); Kistner v. Califano, 579 F.2d 1004, 1006 (6th Cir.1978).

3

. Although the district court did not rule on the Bank’s claim that John Deere’s suit was barred by res judicata, the issue has been fully briefed by the parties, and we note that a basic principle of both Texas and federal res judicata law is that a res judicata claim may not succeed when the party against whom it is raised was not a party to the prior proceeding, or in privity with such a party. Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Tex.1984); Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Co., 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.1971). In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 756 F.2d 411, 419 (5th Cir.1985); Drier v. Tarpon Oil Co., 522 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir.1975). Since John Deere supposedly was neither a party nor in privity with a party to the state court proceeding which purportedly dealt with its claim, it would appear on the record before us that the Bank may not invoke res judicata against it. It is most likely that the district court, in failing to grant summary judgment on those grounds, recognized this apparent fault in the Bank’s argument.