Whether federal district courts have discretion to grant summary judgment when material facts are disputed or when grounds not raised by the movant are considered, and whether such summary judgment potentially violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “Like the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are as binding as any statute duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts have no more discretion to disregard the Rules’ mandate than they do to disregard constitutional or statutory provisions.” Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 66 (1991) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). ‘ Rule 56 is possibly the most consequential Rule because it can negate a constitutional right to a jury trial. The questions presented are: l.a. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a district court has discretion to grant summary judgment to a movant that fails to show there is no : genuine dispute as to any material fact, as the Fourth Circuit held, or the district court lacks such discretion as the Second, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits held. ; 1.b. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(2), a district court has discretion to grant summary judgment to a movant on grounds not raised by the movant without giving the nonmovant notice and a reasonable time to respond, as the Fourth ; Circuit held, or the district court lacks such discretion : as the Seventh and Tenth Circuit held. 2. Whether a court of appeals has discretion to not perform a de novo review on appeal as of right before affirming summary judgment if a litigant will lose its constitutional right to a jury trial. 3. “In Suits at common law...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” U.S. Const. amend. VII (emphasis added). Is summary judgment unconstitutional in a civil case absent proper showing of no genuine dispute as to any material fact? ;