Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Kansas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Summary Judgment

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See S. Mulberry Props. v. GT Mgmt., 124,039, at *7 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2022).)

“A mere surmise or belief on the part of the trial court, no matter how reasonable, that a party cannot prevail upon a trial will not warrant a summary judgment if there remains a dispute as to a material fact which is not clearly shown to be sham, frivolous, or so unsubstantial that it would be futile to try the case.” (See Sly ex rel. Sly v. Board of Education (1973) 213 Kan. 415, 422.)

“The manifest purpose of a summary judgment is to obviate delay where there is no real issue of fact. A court should never attempt to determine the factual issues on a motion for summary judgment, but should search the record for the purpose of determining whether factual issues do exist.” (See id.)

“If there is a reasonable doubt as to their existence, a motion for summary judgment will not lie.” (See id.)

“A court, in making its determination, must give to the party against whom summary judgment is sought the benefit of all inferences that may be drawn from the facts under consideration.” (See id.)

“The purpose of the rule is to make possible the expeditious disposition of cases in which there are no genuine issues of material fact upon which the outcome of the litigation depends.” (See Whelan v. New Mexico Western Oil and Gas Co. (1955) 226 F.2d 156, 159.)

“But the procedure is to be invoked with due caution to the end that litigants may be afforded a trial where there exists between them a bona fide dispute of material fact or facts. Where it appears however that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact upon which the outcome of the litigation turns, the case is appropriate for disposition by summary judgment and it becomes the duty of the court to enter such judgment.” (See id.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Summary Judgment

The rules for summary judgment are governed under Kansas statutes, subsection 60-256.

“A party claiming relief may move, with or without supporting affidavits or supporting declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-256(a).)

“A party against whom relief is sought may move, with or without supporting affidavits or supporting declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-256(b).)

“These times apply unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise:

1. A party may move for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery;
2.  a party opposing the motion must file a response within 21 days after the motion is served or a responsive pleading is due, whichever is later; and
3. the movant may file a reply within 14 days after the response is served.”

(See Kan. Stat. § 60-256(c).)

“The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits or declarations show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-256(c)(2).)

“If summary judgment is not rendered on the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable, determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue. The court should so determine by examining the pleadings and evidence before it and by interrogating the attorneys. It should then issue an order specifying what facts, including items of damages or other relief, are not genuinely at issue. The facts so specified must be treated as established in the action.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-256(d).)

“It is the responsibility of the party opposing summary judgment to provide such evidence by way of deposition or affidavits in opposition to the motion setting out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” (See K.S.A. Supp. 60–256; Leppke v. Heier, (2013) 308 P.3d 31; Willard v. City of Kansas City (1984) 235 Kan. 655, 657, 681 P.2d 1067.)

“That party cannot rely solely upon the allegations in his pleadings.” (See Willard v. City of Kansas City (1984) 235 Kan. 655, 657, 681 P.2d 1067.)

“A summary judgment proceeding is not a trial by affidavits, and the parties must always be afforded a trial when there is a good faith dispute over the facts.” (See Leppke v. Heier (2013) 308 P.3d 31; Brick v. City of Wichita (1965) 195 Kan. 206, 211, 403 P.2d 964.)

“A summary judgment upon motion of the defendant should therefore never be entered except where the defendant is entitled to its allowance beyond all doubt, and only where the conceded facts show the defendant's rights with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy, with all reasonable doubts touching existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact resolved against the movant, and giving the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to the party moved against.” (See Brick v. City of Wichita (1965) 195 Kan. 206, 212.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Summary Judgment

"Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (See Velasquez v. Leidich (2018) 430 P.3d 490; Stechschulte v. Jennings (2013) 297 Kan. 2, Syl. ¶ 2, 298 P.3d 1083.)

“The party opposing summary judgment must offer evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must resolve all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” (See id.)

“The trial court judge may not decide disputed issues of material fact on summary judgment. The trial court judge also must not assess credibility or balance and weigh evidence, as these functions are reserved for the fact-finder at trial.” (See id; Esquivel v. Watters (2008) 286 Kan. 292, 295-96, 183 P.3d 847.)

“When reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.” (See Velasquez v. Leidich (2018) 430 P.3d 490; S. Mulberry Props. v. GT Mgmt., 124,039, at *7 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2022); Patterson v. Cowley County (2018) 307 Kan. 616, 621, 413 P.3d 432; Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. v. Oliver (2009) 289 Kan. 891, 900, 220 P.3d 333.)

“Appellate courts review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the same standard.” (See Velasquez v. Leidich (2018) 430 P.3d 490; Hare v. Wendler (1997) 263 Kan. 434, 439, 949 P.2d 1141.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Summary Judgment

It is well settled that “a court should be cautious in granting a motion for summary judgment where a state of mind is involved, or where the facts are peculiarly in the knowledge of the moving party, and the court should be sure that the party opposing the motion has a fair opportunity to use the discovery process to probe his opponent's mental state and to examine the facts his opponent has at hand.” (See Brick v. City of Wichita (1965) 195 Kan. 206, 211; Cochran v. United States (1954) 123 F. Supp. 362; Somers Construction Co. v. Board of Education (1961) 198 F. Supp. 732; 3 Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1232.2, p. 111.)

As such, it is also well settled that “ordinarily a motion for summary judgment should not be granted so long as pretrial discovery remains unfinished.” (See id; Smith-Corona Marchant, Inc. v. American Photocopy Equip. Co. (1963) 217 F. Supp. 39.)