United States In the United States federal courts, summary judgment is governed by Federal Rule of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, derived primarily from the three seminal cases concerning summary judgment out of the 1980s. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56;
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, , 322–27 (1986) (clarifying the shifting allocations of burdens of production, persuasion, and proof at summary judgment);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., , 257 (1986) (applying heightened evidentiary standard of proof in libel action to judicial assessment of propriety of summary judgment);
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., , 596–98 (1986) (holding antitrust plaintiff with an inherently implausible claim was subject to dismissal at summary judgment). In
American legal practice, summary judgment can be awarded by the court before trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. At the federal level, a summary-judgment motion 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 summary-judgment motions if matters outside the pleadings are presented toand not excluded bythe trial-court judge. A
party seeking summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called the
movant (usually, this is
defendant); the opposing party is the
nonmovant (usually,
plaintiff). Per Rule 56(a), issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that,
both: • there exists no disputed, genuine issue of material
fact between the parties requiring a trial to resolve; and • in applying the law to the (undisputed) facts, one party is clearly entitled by law to judgment. Here: • An
issue of (purported) fact is a (potential) event that the factfinder at trial (jury, or judge in the case of a bench trial) is charged with
crediting (determining what "really happened", according to the credibility of the witnesses/experts/etc. at trial). • A
disputed issue/fact means movant claims one thing, while nonmovant makes a different (conflicting/contradictory) claim. • A
genuine issue/fact is one that can be resolved in favor of either party, by some rational/reasonable factfinder. • A
material issue/fact is one that has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case/issue in dispute (judgment in favor of one party over the other). Of cardinal importance here is that, by design, the judge had no discretion at summary judgment time: all fact-finding is done by the jury at trial, not by the judge at summary judgment (the judge only looks for the existence of disputed facts to be found). Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. It does not apply to criminal cases to obtain a pretrial judgment of conviction or acquittal, in part because a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. Some federal and state-court judges publish general guidelines and sample summary judgment forms. According to
Federal Judicial Center research, summary-judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases. 71% of summary-judgment motions were filed by defendants, 26% by plaintiffs. From a tactical perspective, there are two basic types of summary-judgment motions. One requires a
full evidentiary presentation, and the other requires only a more limited, targeted one. First, a plaintiff may seek summary judgment on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may seek summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense. But in either case, the moving party must produce evidence in support of
each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). To be successful, this type of summary-judgment motion must be drafted as a written preview 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. Second, a different and very common tactic is where a defendant seeks summary judgment 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 summary judgment for the defendant. So these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to seek summary judgment on a defendant's
affirmative defense, but those types of motions are very rare. A party seeking summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible at 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 pieces of evidence 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 supporting, or opposing, the motion. The opposing party may also file its own summary-judgment motion (called a
cross-motion), if the 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 leave of court. Normally, federal judges require valid reasons to alter case-management deadlines and only do so with reluctance. 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.
Google Scholar is the biggest database of full-text state and federal court decisions that can be accessed without charge. These
web search engines often allow one to select specific state courts to search. 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.
State-court practice Summary judgment practice in
state courts in most
U.S. 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. This is done by attaching relevant documents and by summarizing all relevant factual points within those documents in a separate statement of facts. and a "partial summary judgment" is not actually final since it necessarily leaves some issues to be decided at trial. 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 punitive-damages claim. There is also language in section 437c about "issues of duty", but some Court 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. In New York, there is the procedure of summary judgment in lieu of complaint CPLR § 3213. This allows a plaintiff in an action based on an instrument to pay money only or a judgment to file a motion for summary judgment and supporting papers with the summons instead of a complaint. The motion must be noted to be heard on the date the defendant is required to appear under CPLR 320(a). If the plaintiff sets down the hearing date later than the minimum, he may require the defendant to serve a copy of the answering paper on him within the extended period. If the motion is denied the moving and answering papers shall be deemed the complaint and answer, respectively, unless the court orders otherwise.
Filing and privacy Many
U.S. district courts have developed their own requirements included in local rules for filing summary-judgment motions. Local rules can set limits on the number of pages, explain if a separate factual statement 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. 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. Summary-judgment motions, like many other court filings, are a matter of public record. So under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2, sensitive text like
Social Security number,
Taxpayer Identification Number,
birthday, bank accounts and
children's names, should be
redacted from the summary-judgment motion and accompanying exhibits. 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 the 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. Additionally, the local rules may require parties seeking to seal documents to first file a motion to seal and obtain leave of the court prior to filing the sealed documents. 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.
England and Wales In
England and Wales, Part 24
Ontario, after a study on the issues of access to justice, reformed its rules in 2010 to extend the powers of motion judges and
masters for ordering summary judgment, following the introduction of similar measures in
Alberta and
British Columbia. In 2014, the
Supreme Court of Canada encouraged greater use of the procedure by the courts in its ruling in
Hryniak v. Mauldin. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada announced a cultural shift, in favor of greater reliance on summary judgment motions to adjudicate disputes, as opposed to reliance on conventional trial. This shift was urged by a desire to increase access to civil justice, by interpreting summary judgment rules broadly, "favoring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims". However, since the decision in
Hyniak, a number of court decisions have sought to limit its use in the context of motions for partial summary judgments. In
Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, the Ontario Court of Appeal reports "the increase in summary judgment motions that have flowed since Hryniak" and that judges "are required to spend time hearing partial summary judgment motions and writing comprehensive reasons on an issue that does not dispose of the action."
Turkey Summary judgments are not permitted under Turkish law.
Germany There is no specific provision in German law for summary judgment, though a judge may dismiss a clearly unfounded case on the merits after a hearing and without receiving evidence into the record.
Hong Kong Summary judgment exists in Hong Kong. The test is whether there is a triable issue and if there is one, whether it amounts to an arguable defense. ==See also==