Summary Judgment Motions in New York & California

Summary judgment motions are a common tool used by litigants to seek a resolution of their dispute without the need for a full trial. Summary judgment can target the entire case or some parts of it, which is called partial summary judgment. Partial summary judgment is an important tool that can be used by parties in a civil lawsuit to narrow the issues in dispute and move the case towards a resolution.

Partial summary judgment in New York and California

Partial summary judgment is available in both New York and California. Under New York law, a party may move for partial summary judgment on a claim or defense where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under California law, the partial version is called summary adjudication. It asks the court to decide one or more entire causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for punitive damages, or issues of duty (Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(f)). If the court grants the motion, those issues are resolved in favor of the moving party and the rest of the case continues.

Whether the losing party can appeal right away depends on the state. In New York, an order granting or denying summary judgment, including partial summary judgment, can generally be appealed to the Appellate Division right away. In California, the losing party generally must wait until a final judgment is entered in the whole case, although review by writ petition is sometimes available.

In both New York and California, summary judgment motions are governed by the same basic principles. Summary judgment is a motion made by a party in a lawsuit in which they argue that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion is often used when the facts of the case are not in dispute and the only issue is the legal question of whether the party is entitled to judgment. This essay will discuss the legal principles applicable to summary judgment motions in both New York and California, as well as the strategies available to litigants seeking to defend against such motions.

Summary Judgment Motions in New York

In New York, summary judgment motions are governed by CPLR § 3212. This statute provides that a court may grant summary judgment when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”¹ The burden of proof is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.² The court must consider all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.³

In New York, the standard for defending against a summary judgment motion is set forth in Sillman v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395 (1957), where the New York Court of Appeals, held that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and the only issue is a question of law. In this case, the court held that a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by demonstrating that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that should be decided by a jury. To do this, the plaintiff must present evidence that is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of liability. This means that the plaintiff must present evidence that, if believed by the jury, could lead to a verdict in their favor.

Summary Judgment in California

In California, summary judgment motions are governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 437c. This statute provides that a court may grant summary judgment when “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”⁴ The burden of proof is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.⁵ The court must consider all evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.⁶

In Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the California Supreme Court held that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and the only issue is a question of law. The court further held that a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by presenting evidence that raises a triable issue of fact. This means that the plaintiff must present evidence that, if believed by the jury, could lead to a verdict in their favor. The court also held that the plaintiff must present evidence that is sufficient to raise more than a mere suspicion or conjecture of liability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, summary judgment motions are a powerful tool for parties seeking to resolve their disputes without a full trial. In both New York and California, summary judgment motions are governed by similar legal principles, and litigants have two primary strategies available to them when defending against such motions. First, because the burden starts with the moving party, the opposing party can show that the moving party has not established the absence of a factual dispute or its right to judgment as a matter of law; if that initial showing fails, the motion should be denied. Second, the opposing party can demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that should be decided by a jury. To do this, the party must present evidence that is sufficient to raise a reasonable inference or more than a mere suspicion or conjecture of liability. By presenting this evidence, parties can successfully defend against summary judgment motions and have their cases heard by a jury.

Related: in California, whether a ruling that resolves only part of a case can be appealed right away depends on California’s one final judgment rule.

Footnotes

1. CPLR § 3212(b).
2. Id.; see also Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562 (1980).
3. See Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562; see also Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404 (1957).
4. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).
5. Id.; see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 853 (2001).
6. See Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853; see also Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763, 767 (2001).
7. See Zuckerman, 49 N.Y.2d at 562; see also Sillman, 3 N.Y.2d at 404; Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 853; Saelzler, 25 Cal.4th at 767.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a summary judgment motion?

It asks the court to decide a lawsuit, or part of it, without a full trial because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. New York governs these motions under CPLR § 3212 and California under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c.

What is partial summary judgment?

It targets part of a case, such as a single claim or defense, rather than the whole lawsuit, and is used to narrow the issues in dispute. New York allows partial summary judgment under CPLR § 3212; California calls it summary adjudication, which must dispose of an entire cause of action, affirmative defense, punitive damages claim or issue of duty.

Who has the burden on a summary judgment motion?

The moving party must show there is no genuine (in California, triable) issue of material fact. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor (Zuckerman v. City of New York; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.).

How do you defeat a summary judgment motion?

Two ways: by showing the moving party has not met its initial burden, or by presenting evidence that shows a genuine dispute of material fact for a jury to decide: in New York, evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of liability (Sillman), and in California, evidence that raises a triable issue and more than mere suspicion or conjecture (Aguilar).