Summary adjudication and summary judgment are both legal terms that relate to resolving a case without going to trial. These processes are used in civil litigation cases in which a party asks the court to rule on a particular issue or set of issues without going through a full trial. Although these terms may seem similar, there are some key differences between summary adjudication and summary judgment that are important to understand.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a legal ruling made by a judge in a civil case in which the judge decides that no genuine issue of material fact needs to be resolved by a trial. In other words, summary judgment is a way to resolve a case without going to trial if the evidence is clear and there is no dispute about the facts of the case. The party seeking summary judgment asks the court to rule in their favor based on the evidence presented.

To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there are no disputed issues of fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party can meet this burden, the court will enter judgment in their favor, and the case will be over without going to trial. The party opposing summary judgment must demonstrate that disputed issues of fact require resolution at trial.

Summary Adjudication

On the other hand, summary adjudication is a legal ruling made by a judge in a civil case in which the judge decides one or more issues in the case without resolving the entire case. In other words, summary adjudication is a way to resolve specific issues in a case without going through a full trial. The party seeking summary adjudication asks the court to rule on a particular issue or issues that are at the heart of the dispute.

To obtain summary adjudication, the moving party must demonstrate that there are no disputed issues of fact on the specific issue or issues at hand and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on those issues. If the moving party can meet this burden, the court will enter a ruling on those issues, and the case will proceed to trial on any remaining issues.

Key Differences

The key difference between summary adjudication and summary judgment is that summary adjudication only resolves specific issues in a case, while summary judgment resolves the entire case. Summary adjudication is often used when discrete legal issues can be resolved without going through a full trial. For example, if there is a dispute about the validity of a particular contract provision, summary adjudication may be used to resolve that issue without having to go through a full trial on all of the issues in the case.

On the other hand, summary judgment is used when there are no genuine issues of material fact that need to be resolved at trial. If the evidence is clear and there is no dispute about the facts of the case, summary judgment may be used to resolve the entire case without going to trial. This is often used in cases where one party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, summary adjudication and summary judgment are two legal terms that relate to resolving a case without going to trial. While they may seem similar, they are actually quite different. Summary adjudication is used to resolve specific issues in a case, while summary judgment is used to resolve the entire case. Both processes can help save time and money in civil litigation cases, but they must be used appropriately and in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.