Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Summary Judgment

“Under M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See J & C Moodie Properties, LLC v. Deck (2016) MT 301, ¶ 15, 385 Mont. 382, 384 P.3d 466.)

“The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact.” (See Valentine E. Weisz Living Tr. v. D.A. Davidson Tr. Co. (2018) 393 Mont. 219, 227; Lorang v. Fortis Insu. Co. (2008) 345 Mont. 12, 21.)

“To satisfy this burden, the moving party must exclude any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact by making a clear showing as to what the truth is.” (See id.)

“If the moving party meets his or her burden of demonstrating a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, not merely denials, speculation, or conclusory statements, in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact exists.” (See Valentine E. Weisz Living Tr. v. D.A. Davidson Tr. Co. (2018) 393 Mont. 219, 227.)

“In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, we must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Therefore, all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. If there is any doubt as to whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” (See Lorang v. Fortis Insu. Co. (2008) 345 Mont. 12, 21-22; LaTray v. City of Havre (2000) 299 Mont. 449; Newbury v. State Farm Fire Cas. Ins. Co. (2008) MT 156, ¶ 14, 343 Mont. 279, ¶ 14, 184 P.3d 1021, ¶ 14.)

“Finally, if no genuine issues of material fact exist, it must then be determined whether the facts actually entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” (See id; M. R. Civ. P. 56(c).)

Rules for a Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment.

“A party claiming relief may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 56(a).)

“A party against whom relief is sought may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment on all or part of the claim.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 56(b).)

“A party may move for summary judgment at any time…” (See M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).)

“A party opposing the motion must file a response, and any opposing affidavits, within 21 days after the motion is served or a responsive pleading is due, whichever is later…” (See M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).)

“The movant may file a reply within 14 days after the response is served.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(C).)

“The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits 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 M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).)

“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.” (M.R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Summary Judgment

“We review a district court's summary judgment ruling de novo.” (See Craig Tracts Homeowners' Ass'n v. Brown Drake, LLC (2020) 402 Mont. 223, 226; Bardsley v. Pluger (2015) 358 P.3d 907, 910.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Summary Judgment

It is well settled that “an affidavit either supporting or opposing summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated." (See M. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1); Moore v. Frost (2021) 403 Mont. 483, 489.)

It is also well settled that “summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issues of material fact are shown from the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and affidavits, and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). A material fact is a fact that involves the elements of the cause of action or defenses at issue to an extent that necessitates resolution of the issue by a trier of fact.” (See Newman v. Lichfield (2012) 364 Mont. 243, 253; Corporate Air v. Edwards Jet Center (2008) 345 Mont. 336.)