<P> A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when, in the moving party's view, the outcome is obvious . Typically this is stated as, when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate . Sometimes this will occur when there is no real dispute as to what happened, but it also frequently occurs when there is a nominal dispute but the non-moving party cannot produce enough evidence to support its position . A party may also move for summary judgment in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (i.e., by moving at the outset of discovery), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried . If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in its favor . In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . </P> <P> In the United States federal courts, summary judgment is governed by Federal Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, derived primarily from the three seminal cases concerning summary judgment out of the 1980s . See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322--27 (1986) (clarifying the shifting allocations of burdens of production, persuasion, and proof at summary judgment); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986) (applying heightened evidentiary standard of proof in libel action to judicial assessment of propriety of summary judgment); Matsushita Elec . Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 596--98 (1986) (holding antitrust plaintiff with an inherently implausible claim was subject to dismissal at summary judgment). </P> <P> In American legal practice, summary judgment can be awarded by the court before trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary . At the federal level, a summary - judgment motion in United States District Court is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," can be converted by the judge to summary - judgment motions if matters outside the pleadings are presented to--and not excluded by--the trial - court judge . </P> <P> A party seeking summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called the movant (usually, this is defendant); the opposing party is the nonmovant (usually, plaintiff). Per Rule 56 (a), issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that, both: </P>

What happens if a motion for summary judgment is granted