Summary judgment
This article's lead section may be too long. (October 2023) |
In
In
A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when, in the moving party's view, the outcome is obvious. Typically this is stated as, when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate. Sometimes this will occur when there is no real dispute as to what happened, but it also frequently occurs when there is a nominal dispute but the non-moving party cannot produce enough evidence to support its position. A party may also move for summary judgment in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (i.e., by moving at the outset of discovery), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder 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 its favor. 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 that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Specific jurisdictions
United States
Civil procedure in the United States |
---|
Jurisdiction |
|
Venue |
Pleadings |
|
Pretrial procedure |
Resolution without trial |
Trial |
|
Appeal |
This section needs additional citations for verification. (April 2021) |
In the United States federal courts, summary judgment is governed by Federal Rule 56 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, 477 U.S. 317, 322–27 (1986) (clarifying the shifting allocations of burdens of production, persuasion, and proof at summary judgment); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986) (applying heightened evidentiary standard of proof in libel action to judicial assessment of propriety of summary judgment); , 596–98 (1986) (holding antitrust plaintiff with an inherently implausible claim was subject to dismissal at summary judgment).
In
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 factbetween 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 by 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.[4] Some federal and state-court judges publish general guidelines and sample summary judgment forms.[5][6][7][8]
According to Federal Judicial Center research, summary-judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases.[9] 71% of summary-judgment motions were filed by defendants, 26% by plaintiffs.[9] Out of these, 36% of the motions were denied, and 64% were granted in whole or in part.[9]
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.
Regardless of the type of summary judgment motion, there is a standardized rule(-like) framework for evaluating the first clause of Rule 56(a) ("no disputed genuine issue of material fact"), formulated as the following six core summary judgment tenets of review (SJTOR) (where the emphasized must indicate the lack of judicial discretion permitted):
- All issues/facts: All ("each/every", not just "some") factual issues must be considered/discussed—especially, all disputed/contested genuine issues of material facts.
- Whole record: The entire record ("whole set/totality of circumstances", not just a "subset"), must be considered, regarding each/every issue.
- In context: All issues must be considered in holistic relationship with one another, within the whole-record environment (not context-free line-by-line isolation); patterns may emerge.
- Nonmovant trumps movant: Tenets 1–3 must be interpreted/construed in the light most favorable/advantageous to nonmovant (never to movant), and belief/credit awarded thereto (as to whether a dispute exists, not as to who wins the dispute, though either interpretation unambiguously satisfies the only question at summary judgment, which is whether or not a dispute exists).
- All inferences: All reasonable/justifiable logical/legal inferences/implications from tenets 1–3 must also be interpreted favorably to nonmovant, and credit awarded thereto.[11][12]
- Light burden: For tenets 4–5, nonmovant bears the undemanding requirement of production only of favorable facts (and law)—i.e., de minimis proof/persuasion (that a rational/reasonable jury could find for nonmovant). All fact/credibility-finding must be reserved for the jury at trial, none for the judge at summary judgment.
A party seeking summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible at trial, such as
Deadline for filing of the
There are also freely accessible
If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a
To defeat a summary-judgment motion, 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, even if the moving side can produce the testimony of "a dozen bishops",[This quote needs a citation] and the non-moving 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 the factfinder at trial.
Where appropriate, a court may award judgment summarily upon fewer than all claims. This is known as partial summary judgment.
Reviews of summary judgments
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo,[15] 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
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
Summary-judgment motions, like many other court filings, are a matter of public record. So under
However, certain types of filings containing information that would otherwise be redacted are excepted from redaction.[23] 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.[24]
A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy
Criminal law counterpart
In the United States, the criminal law counterpart to summary judgment is the motion to dismiss.[25][26]
England and Wales
In England and Wales, Part 24[3] 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 in rem.
Canada
Summary judgment procedures were broadened in Canadian courts in the 1980s. With the exception of Quebec (which has its own procedural device for disposing of abusive claims summarily), all provinces feature a summary judgment mechanism in their respective rules of civil procedure.[27] Ontario, after a study on the issues of access to justice,[28] 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.[29]
In 2014, the
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.[32][33][34] 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."[35]
Turkey
Summary judgments are not permitted under Turkish law.[36]
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.[37]
China
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.[38]
See also
References
- ^ "Rule 2.116 Summary Disposition". michigancourtrules.org. Retrieved 23 August 2019.
- ^ "The Key to Winning at Summary Judgment: Know Your Burden". Retrieved 10 March 2021.
- ^ a b "PART 24 - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Civil Procedure Rules". www.justice.gov.uk. Retrieved 17 September 2021.
- ^ Leonetti, Carrie (Spring 2011). "When the Emperor Has No Clothes: A Proposal for Defensive Summary Judgment in Criminal Cases". Southern California Law Review. 84.
- ^ "An Overview of Summary Judgment Practice" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 March 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
- ^ "Sample Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 January 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
- ^ "Your First Motion for Summary Judgment from the Court's Perspective" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
- ^ "How to Write a Motion for Summary Judgment". Archived from the original on 6 May 2007. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
- ^ a b c "Report on Summary Judgment Practice" (PDF).
- ^ "Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006" (PDF).
- ^ Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
- ^ Wolff, T. B. (n.d.). "Scott v. Harris and the Future of Summary Judgment". Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 15:1351, pp. 1351–1386.
- ^ a b c "Google Scholar".
- ^ "An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment".
- ^ US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Johnson v Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 424 F.3d 806, delivered 26 September 2005, accessed 30 December 2023
- ^ a b c See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001).
- ^ California Code of Civil Procedure Section 577.
- ^ "Local Court Rules". Archived from the original on 22 May 2010.
- ^ a b "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Indiana" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2011.
- ^ a b "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oklahoma" (PDF).
- ^ "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oregon". Archived from the original on 27 May 2010.
- ^ a b c "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure".
- ^ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.2(b) et seq.
- ^ e.g. Local Rules, U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota
- ^ Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)(v)
- ^ Francisco, N. J., Burnham, J., & Day, J. (July 20, 2016). "The Criminal Analogue to 12(b)(6): Judicial Power to Dismiss Indictments". Lexology.
- ^ Janet Walker (2012). "Summary Judgment Has its Day in Court" (PDF). Queen's Law Journal. 37 (2). Queen's University: 693–724. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 February 2014., at 696
- ISBN 978-1-4249-5130-7.
- ^ Craig Ferris (13 February 2011). "British Columbia and Alberta New Rules of Civil Procedure – Initial Impressions". Lawson Lundell LLP.
- ^ "Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 87". CanLii. Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
- ^ Hryniak v. Mauldin, paras. 2-5
- ^ "Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi, 2014 ONCA 450". Canlii. Ontario Court of Appeal. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
- ^ "Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783". Canlii. Ontario Court of Appeal. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
- ^ "Vandenberg v. Wilken, 2019 ONCA 262". Canlii. Ontario Court of Appeal. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
- ^ Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783 at para. 32
- ^ Baysal, Pelin (3 January 2019). "Litigation and enforcement in Turkey: overview". Westlaw. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
- ^ Thomson Reuters. (2020, April 1). Practical Law. Practical Law US Signon. (Retrieved April 19, 2021).
- ^ Mallesons, K., & Mallesons, W. (2 April 15, 2019). "The Legal System and Civil Procedure for Commercial Dispute Resolution in Hong Kong (Part II of II)". "China Law Insight.