Editing Summary judgment (section)

====State-court practice====
Summary judgment practice in [[State court (United States)|state courts]] in
most [[U.S. states]] is similar to federal practice, though with minor differences. For example, the U.S. state of [[California]] requires the moving party to actually present evidence rather than merely refer to evidence.<ref name="Aguilar">See ''Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.'', [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/25C4t826.htm 25 Cal. 4th 826] (2001).</ref> This is done by attaching relevant documents and by summarizing all relevant factual points within those documents in a separate statement of facts.<ref name="Aguilar" /> In turn, the record to be reviewed by the judge can be very large; for example, the landmark ''Aguilar'' case involved a record of about 18,400 pages.<ref name="Aguilar" /> Also, California uses the term "summary adjudication" instead of "partial summary judgment". The California view is that the latter term is an [[oxymoron]] since a judgment is defined by [[California Code of Civil Procedure]] Section 577 as the "final determination of the rights of the parties"<ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=577. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 577].</ref> and a "partial summary judgment" is not actually final since it necessarily leaves some issues to be decided at trial. There is currently a conflict between the different districts of the California Courts of Appeal as to the availability of summary adjudication; most superior courts tend to side with the narrowest interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, under which a party may make such a motion only with respect to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, or a punitive-damages claim. There is also language in section 437c about "issues of duty", but some Court of Appeal panels have given that phrase an extremely narrow interpretation due to evidence that the [[California State Legislature]] has been trying to stop the state courts from engaging in the piecemeal adjudication of individual issues.

In New York, there is the procedure of summary judgment in lieu of complaint CPLR § 3213. This allows a plaintiff in an action based on an instrument to pay money only or a judgment to file a motion for summary judgment and supporting papers with the summons instead of a complaint. The motion must be noted to be heard on the date the defendant is required to appear under CPLR 320(a). If the plaintiff sets down the hearing date later than the minimum, he may require the defendant to serve a copy of the answering paper on him within the extended period. If the motion is denied the moving and answering papers shall be deemed the complaint and answer, respectively, unless the court orders otherwise.