What is the difference between a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment?

• A. Dismissal is based on jurisdiction or failure to state a claim; summary judgment resolves issues as a matter of law when there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
• B. Dismissal ends the case; summary judgment prolongs trial.
• C. Dismissal is used only after trial; summary judgment is used before trial.
• D. They are the same.

Answer: (A)

The main distinction is about what each motion tests in the case. A motion to dismiss challenges the case at the outset by asking the court to throw it out because the court lacks jurisdiction or the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If granted, the case ends (often with prejudice, though that depends on the ruling and jurisdiction), and no factual record is weighed.

A motion for summary judgment, on the other hand, asks the court to decide the case as a matter of law after there is a factual record. It can only be granted if there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the applicable law. This requires evidence from the record, such as affidavits, depositions, or other documents; if there is a real factual dispute, the case proceeds to trial.

So, the first idea focuses on legal sufficiency or jurisdiction appearing on the face of the complaint, potentially ending the case without a trial, while the second relies on the absence of disputed facts with evidence in the record to resolve the case without a trial.