What is the difference between a settlement conference and a motion for summary judgment?

In Michigan, settlement conferences and motions for summary judgment are two distinct civil procedure actions. A settlement conference, or “mediation,” is an attempt to resolve a disagreement without the need for a lengthy litigation process. The settlement conference provides a neutral third-party mediator to facilitate negotiations between the parties to the dispute. The mediator will typically assess the facts of the case and provide an impartial opinion on the case’s merits. If the parties can reach an agreement, the case is settled, and litigation is avoided. In contrast, a motion for summary judgment is a formal request for a judge to make a decision on the case without a trial. The motion is based on the claim that no material facts have been disputed and that the dispute can be decided on the basis of existing law. The motion typically presents the facts of the case, the relevant laws related to the case, and the legal arguments for why the judge should grant summary judgment. The judge will then review the evidence presented and either grant or deny the motion for summary judgment. If granted, the case is concluded and no further court appearances are necessary. If denied, the parties may proceed to trial.

Related FAQs

What is the pre-trial stage of civil procedure?
What are the common defenses in civil law?
What are the differences between civil law and common law?
What is the standard of review for an appellate court?
What is res judicata and collateral estoppel?
What is a complaint?
What is the role of a judge in a civil case?
What are the court rules for a summary judgment hearing?
What are the remedies for discovery violations?
What are the steps in a civil trial?

What is the difference between a settlement conference and a motion for summary judgment?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts