Summary judgment

For the simplification and shortening of a longer text, see Summary.

Civil procedure in the United States
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Doctrines of civil procedure Jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction Removal jurisdiction Venue Change of venue Forum non conveniens Pleadings Service of process Complaint Cause of action Case Information Statement Class action Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Demurrer Answer Affirmative defense Reply Counterclaim Crossclaim Joinder Indispensable party Impleader Interpleader Intervention Other Motions Pre-trial procedure Discovery Initial Conference Interrogatories Depositions Request for Admissions Request for production Resolution without trial Default judgment Summary judgment Voluntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Settlement Trial Parties Plaintiff Defendant Pro Se Jury Voir dire Burden of proof Judgment Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) Renewed JMOL (JNOV) Motion to set aside judgment New trial Remedy Injunction Damages Attorney's fees American rule English rule Declaratory judgment Appeal Mandamus Certiorari
This box: view · talk · edit

In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.

In common law systems, the interpretation of that law, that is to say, any question as to what the law actually is in a particular case, are decided by the judge; in rare cases jury nullification of the law may act to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional common law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury.

Absent an award of summary judgment (or some other type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for each party to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that such party is saying "what really happened," and that, under the judge's view of applicable law, such party should prevail.

The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly.

A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious. A party may also move for summary judgement in order to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery, by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the jury to decide, then, the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in favor of the moving party. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party who is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Specific jurisdictions

United States

In American legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:

1. there are no disputes of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and
2. in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.

A party making a motion for summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called a "moving party." A "material fact" is one which, depending upon what the factfinder believes "really happened," could lead to judgment in favor of one party, rather than the other.

At present, summary judgment in the United States is available only in civil cases. There is no mechanism for parties in a criminal case to obtain a pretrial judgment of conviction or acquittal, in part because of a criminal defendant's constitutional right to trial by jury.^[1] Some federal and state court judges published general guidelines and sample motion forms for the summary judgment.^[2][3][4][5]

A plaintiff may move for summary judgment in its favor on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may move for summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense or for the lack of evidence for the plaintiff, but in either case, must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). According to Federal Judicial Center research, 17% of the U.S. Court's civil cases had at least one motion for summary judgment filed.^[6] Since almost two-thirds of the U.S. Court's civil cases are dismissed or settled, over half of the cases that reach the final judgment stage were disposed based on a motion for summary judgment.^[7] 71% of the summary judgment motions were filed by defendants, 26% by plaintiffs.^[6] Out of these, 36% of the motions were denied, and 64% were granted in whole or in part.^[6]

Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006.^[7]

To be successful, a motion for summary judgment must be drafted as written previews of a party's entire case-in-chief (that it would put before the finder of fact at trial) because all parts of an entire claim or defense are at issue.

A different and very common tactic is where a defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in an immediate grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Therefore, these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in its favor on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those types of plaintiff motions are very rare.

A party moving for summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible if there were to be a trial, such as, depositions (or deposition excerpts), party admissions, affidavits in support from witnesses, documents received during discovery (such as contracts, emails, letters, and certified government documents). The evidences should be accompanied by a declaration from the moving party that all copies of the documents are true and correct, including deposition excerpts. Each party may present to the court its view of applicable law by submitting a legal memorandum in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. Opposing party may also file its own motion for summary judgment (called a "cross-motion"), if deadline still allows. The court may allow for oral argument of the lawyers, generally where the judge wishes to question the lawyers on issues in the case.

Deadline for filing of the dispositive motions in U.S. federal court system is set by judge in the initial Discovery Plan order. If a party wants to file a motion or a cross-motion for summary judgment after the deadline, it needs to ask for a leave of Court. Normally U.S. Courts require the valid reasons and reluctant to extend the deadline.

Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. The court must consider all materials in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.

If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a bench trial) deciding in favor of the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment is inappropriate. A decision granting summary judgment can be appealed without delay. A decision denying summary judgment ordinarily cannot be immediately appealed; instead, the case continues on its normal course. In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (the final judgment rule).

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, if one side on a summary judgment motion can produce the evidence of "a dozen bishops", and the other side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for trial.

Where appropriate, a court may award summary judgment upon less than all claims, known as "partial summary judgment."

It is not uncommon for summary judgments of lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed "de novo" (meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge) both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A motion for summary judgment in United States District Court is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," can be converted by the judge to motions for summary judgment, if matters outside the pleadings are presented to – and not excluded by – the trial-court judge.

There are also freely accessible web search engines to assist parties in finding court decisions that can be cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law.^[8] Google Scholar is the biggest database of full text state and federal courts decisions that can be accessed without charge.^[8][9] These web search engines often allow one to select specific state courts to search.^[8]

State court practice

Summary judgment practice in most states is similar to federal practice, though with minor differences. For example, the U.S. state of California requires the moving party to actually present evidence rather than merely refer to evidence. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001). This is done by attaching relevant documents and by summarizing all relevant factual points within those documents in a separate statement of facts. In turn, the record to be reviewed by the judge can be very large; for example, the Aguilar case involved a record of about 18,400 pages. Also, California uses the term "summary adjudication" instead of "partial summary judgment." The California view is that the latter term is an oxymoron since a judgment is supposed to be final (in the sense of completely disposing of the case). There is currently a conflict between the different districts of the California Courts of Appeal as to the availability of summary adjudication; most superior courts tend to side with the narrowest interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, under which a party may make such a motion only with respect to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, or a claim for punitive damages. There is also language in section 437c about "issues of duty," but some Courts of Appeal panels have given that phrase an extremely narrow interpretation due to evidence that the California State Legislature has been trying to stop the state courts from engaging in the piecemeal adjudication of individual issues.

Filing and privacy

See also: Motion_(legal)#Motion_for_summary_judgment

Many of the U.S. district courts have developed their own requirements included in Local Rules for filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment.^[10] Local Rules can set up a limit on the number of pages, explain if a separate Statement of Facts is required, whether it is acceptable to combine motion petition with a response, and if a judge needs an additional copy of the documents (called a "judge’s copy"), etc. ^[11][12] Local Rules can define page layout elements like: margins, text font/size, distance between lines, mandatory footer text, page numbering, and provide directions on how the pages need to be bind together - i.e. acceptable fasteners, number and location of fastening holes, etc. ^[11][12][13] If the filed motion does not comply with the Local Rules, then the judge can choose to strike the motion completely, or order the party to re-file its motion, or grant a special exception to the Local Rules.

According to FRCP 5.2, sensitive text like SSN, TIN, DOB, bank accounts and children’s names, - should be redacted off the Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying exhibits.^[14] The redacted text can be erased with black-out or white-out, and the page should have an indication that it was redacted - most often by stamping word "redacted" on the bottom. Alternately, the filing party may ask the court’s permission to file some exhibits completely under seal. A minor's name of the petitions should be replaced with initials.^[14]

A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy under seal, or the Court can choose to order later that an additional filing be made under seal without redaction.^[14] Copies of both redacted and unredacted documents filed with court, should be provided to the other parties in the case.

England and Wales

In England and Wales, Part 24^[15] of the Civil Procedure Rules governs the award of summary judgment. Summary judgment is available in all claims against both the defendant and claimant with the following exceptions.

• There may be no summary judgment in possession proceedings against a mortgagor or a person holding over after the end of his tenancy whose occupancy is protected within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 or the Housing Act 1988.
• There may be no summary judgment against a defendant in admiralty proceedings in rem.

See also

• Dispositive motion

References

1. ^ Leonetti, Carrie (Spring). "When the Emperor Has No Clothes: A Proposal for Defensive Summary Judgment in Criminal Cases". Southern California Law Review 84. 
2. ^ "AN OVERVIEW OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRACTICE". http://www.tex-app.org/articles/57986_01.pdf. 
3. ^ "Sample Motion for Summary Judgment". http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/MSK/msk_sj.pdf. 
4. ^ "Your First Motion for Summary Judgment from The Court's Perspective". http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/YL406000/relatedresources/summaryjudgement.pdf. 
5. ^ "How to Write a Motion for Summary Judgment". http://www.mobar.org/afbe2c90-2785-473e-b155-53f783764c97.aspx. 
6. ^ ^{a b c} "Report on Summary Judgment Practice". http://www.scribd.com/doc/8763994/Report-on-Summary-Judgment-Practice-Across-Districts-with-Variations-in-Local-Rules. 
7. ^ ^{a b} "Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990-2006". http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/crcusdc06.pdf. 
8. ^ ^{a b c} "Google Scholar". http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search. 
9. ^ "An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment". http://dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html. 
10. ^ "LOCAL COURT RULES". http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/LocalCourtRules.aspx. 
11. ^ ^{a b} "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Indiana". http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/publications/localrules.pdf. 
12. ^ ^{a b} "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oklahoma". http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/legal/generalo.nsf/0A0713F3B13A3660862570360013F310/$file/civil%20local%20rules.pdf. 
13. ^ "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oregon". http://ord.uscourts.gov/local-rules-of-civil-procedure/lr-10-form-of-pleadings-and-other-documents. 
14. ^ ^{a b c} "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure". http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule5_2.htm. 
15. ^ Part 24

External links

• Los Angeles County Bar Association article comparing Federal Law and California summary judgment burden shifting differences