Also known as: FRCP 56 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 · summary judgment rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing a court to enter judgment without trial when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Renata Russo sued Redwood Bank for breach of contract. The bank filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and attached an affidavit from its loan officer along with internal emails. The court considered the affidavit without excluding it. The motion therefore became one for summary judgment under Rule 56, requiring the court to give Russo a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent materials before ruling.
Raphael Rivera alleged that Rhapsody Entertainment conspired with competitors to fix prices. After discovery, Rhapsody moved for summary judgment. Rivera offered only parallel pricing evidence without facts tending to exclude independent action. The court granted the motion because the record did not permit a reasonable jury to find conspiracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rajesh Rao sued a police officer after a high-speed chase ended in a crash. The officer moved for summary judgment and submitted dash-cam footage showing the chase. Rao offered only his deposition denying recklessness. The court viewed the video and granted the motion because no reasonable jury could find the officer's actions unreasonable.
Ruby Rivera brought a defamation claim against Rising Sun Electronics. The company moved for summary judgment after discovery. Rivera produced only her own affidavit containing conclusory assertions. The court granted the motion because the evidence would not permit a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
Ravi Reddy sued a zoning board claiming injury from a development project. The board moved for summary judgment. Reddy submitted only generalized affidavits without specific facts showing imminent harm. The court granted the motion because the record failed to create a genuine dispute on the injury element of standing.
Renee Rogers sued federal agencies over planned projects alleged to harm endangered species. The agencies moved for summary judgment. Rogers offered only affidavits stating a general intent to visit the areas in the future. The court granted the motion because the affidavits did not create a genuine dispute that injury was imminent.
A party may move for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery unless a local rule or court order sets a different deadline. The rule measures the outer limit from the close of discovery as defined by the scheduling order.
Supporting sources
The nonmovant must respond with specific facts supported by admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute on a material fact. Mere attorney argument or conclusory assertions in the complaint are insufficient once the movant has produced record evidence.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 52(a)(3) expressly exempts rulings on motions under Rule 56 from the requirement of findings of fact and conclusions of law that applies after a nonjury trial.
Supporting sources
If the court considers matters outside the pleadings and does not exclude them, the motion must be converted to one for summary judgment under Rule 56 and all parties must receive a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent material.
Supporting sources
…respondents' evidentiary burden ( i. e. , affidavits asserting "specific facts") in withstanding a summary judgment motion under Rule 56(e) with the standard of proof ( i. e. , the existence of a "genuine issue" of "material fact") under Rule 56(c). 1 Were the Court to apply the proper standard for summary judgment,…