Also known as: summary determinations · summary judgment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial ruling that resolves a claim or defense without a trial. The ruling follows when the movant demonstrates the absence of any genuine dispute over a material fact and shows entitlement to judgment under the governing law.
Sterling Manufacturing sued Sierra Solutions for breach of a supply contract. After fact discovery closed on March 1, Sterling moved for summary determination on March 20, attaching production logs and expert declarations showing no contamination. Sierra opposed with conflicting test results. The court granted the motion because no genuine factual dispute remained on causation.
Summit Bank sued Synergy Systems for loan default. Fact discovery closed March 1 and expert discovery remained open until April 15. Summit filed its motion on March 20 relying solely on fact-discovery materials. The court treated the motion as timely and proceeded to the merits because the scheduling order did not extend the thirty-day period.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sean Steele sued Sasha Stone alleging breach of an oral agreement. Stone moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and attached an affidavit outside the pleadings. The court converted the motion to one for summary determination after giving both parties notice and an opportunity to present additional materials on the existence of the agreement.
Sylvia Santos sued her employer alleging hostile work environment. The employer moved for summary determination, submitting undisputed records showing prompt remedial action after each complaint. The court granted the motion because the record established that no genuine dispute existed on the adequacy of the employer's response.
Stella Shapiro brought a class action alleging misleading statements by a public company. The defendants moved for summary determination after discovery. The court granted the motion because the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute that the statements were materially false when made.
Simone Sanders challenged a corporate merger, claiming the proxy statement omitted material facts. The defendants moved for summary determination. The court granted the motion after finding that the omitted information would not have altered a reasonable shareholder's decision on the merger.
A party may file the motion at any time until thirty days after the close of all discovery unless a local rule or court order sets a different deadline. The rule measures the period from the close of all discovery, though a scheduling order that separates fact and expert phases may effectively trigger the period after fact discovery alone.
Supporting sources
The court must convert the motion to one for summary determination under Rule 56 if it does not exclude the outside materials. All parties must then receive a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent material before the court rules.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 52(a)(3) expressly exempts summary judgment rulings from the requirement that a court state findings of fact and conclusions of law after a nonjury trial.
Supporting sources
…23(b)(3). The District Court therefore certified respondents' class.[^maj-5] On the merits, however, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. It held that, as a matter of law, any misstatements were immaterial: there were no negotiations ongoing at the time of the first statement, and although negotiations…