Legal Definitions - Motion For Summary Judgment

A Motion For Summary Judgment is a formal request made by one party in a lawsuit asking the court to decide a specific claim or part of a case without going through a full trial. The party making the motion argues that there are no significant facts truly in dispute, and based on the undisputed facts, the law clearly dictates that they should win on that particular claim. Essentially, they are asserting that even if all of the opposing party's factual allegations are accepted as true, those facts still do not legally support a victory for the opposing party.

If the court grants a Motion For Summary Judgment, it means that a decision is made on the involved claim(s) without the need for a jury or judge to hear evidence and arguments in a full trial. This saves time and resources when the outcome is legally clear based on the available evidence and the law.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Contract Dispute with Undisputed Terms

  Imagine a software development company, InnovateTech, sues a client, Global Corp, for non-payment on a custom application project. The contract clearly outlined payment milestones, and InnovateTech completed the final milestone and sent the invoice. Global Corp admits they haven't paid but claims the application has minor bugs, even though the contract specified a separate bug-fixing period after final payment. InnovateTech could file a Motion For Summary Judgment. They would argue that there is no genuine dispute about the material facts: a valid contract exists, InnovateTech completed the work as per the final milestone, and Global Corp failed to make the required payment. The contract terms regarding payment are clear, and Global Corp's reason for non-payment (minor bugs) is not a legal justification for withholding payment under the contract's terms. Therefore, InnovateTech believes they are entitled to payment as a matter of law, without needing a trial to determine these facts.

• Example 2: Personal Injury with Clear Lack of Legal Duty

  Consider a scenario where Ms. Chen trips over an uneven section of a public sidewalk and breaks her ankle. She sues the adjacent homeowner, Mr. Davies, claiming he is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. Mr. Davies' lawyer researches the local ordinances and state law, which clearly state that the city, not individual homeowners, is responsible for the maintenance and repair of public sidewalks. Mr. Davies' lawyer could file a Motion For Summary Judgment. The lawyer would argue that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding who is legally responsible for the sidewalk's maintenance. Even if Ms. Chen's injury and the uneven sidewalk are accepted as facts, the law clearly places the duty of care on the city, not Mr. Davies. Therefore, Mr. Davies cannot be held liable, and the case against him should be dismissed without a trial.

• Example 3: Employment Discrimination with Overwhelming Counter-Evidence

  Suppose an employee, Mr. Lee, sues his former employer, Apex Corp, for age discrimination, claiming he was fired because he was 60 years old. Apex Corp presents undisputed evidence that Mr. Lee was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction-in-force due to an economic downturn, affecting employees of all ages, and that his specific position was eliminated. Furthermore, Apex Corp provides performance reviews showing Mr. Lee's performance had consistently declined over the past two years, independent of his age. Apex Corp could file a Motion For Summary Judgment. They would argue that there is no genuine dispute about the material facts: the company underwent a legitimate reduction-in-force, Mr. Lee's position was eliminated, and his performance had been declining. Even if Mr. Lee believes he was discriminated against, the evidence presented by Apex Corp demonstrates legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination, and Mr. Lee has no evidence to counter these facts or show that age was the actual reason. Therefore, Apex Corp believes they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.