The summary judgment process provides a method of terminating a case before it is submitted to the jury when only questions of law are involved and there are no genuine issues of fact. When a party to a lawsuit cannot show that there is a fact issue for the jury to determine, the grant of summary judgment to the opposing party does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.

A summary judgment is often filed after the parties discover some facts in the discovery process, and one or both parties believe that the facts conclusively establish their right to prevail at trial, and that no reasonable jury could find the facts to be otherwise.

In California, the summary judgment process is governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 437c and following. This process allows a party to a lawsuit to seek a judgment from the court without a full trial when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A motion for summary judgment can be filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant once discovery has been conducted and it is clear that the undisputed facts require a legal decision. The moving party must show that there is no evidence to support one or more elements of the opposing party's case or defense. If the court agrees that there are no factual issues to be resolved and that the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law, it will grant summary judgment, effectively ending the case without a jury trial. This does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because that right applies only when there are factual disputes that require resolution by a jury. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the court determines that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party based on the evidence presented.