What is the standard for granting a motion for summary judgment in federal civil cases?

• A. There is a genuine dispute about material facts; trial is required.
• B. The court must hear all evidence before deciding.
• C. No genuine dispute of material fact exists; the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• D. The motion is granted only if the plaintiff wins.

Answer: (C)

The standard being tested is that a federal court will grant summary judgment only when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Rule 56, the moving party must show that the record contains no triable issue of fact. A “genuine dispute” means a real disagreement on facts that could affect the outcome; if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party based on the evidence, there is a genuine dispute and summary judgment should be denied. “Material facts” are those facts that matter under the governing law to decide the case.

If the moving party meets its initial burden with admissible evidence (declarations, affidavits, depositions, documents), the burden shifts to the opposing side to provide evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party cannot do so, the court may grant judgment as a matter of law, resolving the case without a trial. The court evaluates the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

In short, summary judgment is appropriate when the facts are so one-sided that there is no need for a trial to decide the legal issues.