No. 25-1402October Term 2025Before Arguments
Kimberly R. Sweidy, Petitioner v. Spring Ridge Academy, an Arizona Corporation, et al.
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Question presented
1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(3) and the Due Process Clause permit a district court to grant summary judgment against a non-moving party on a ground that the moving party never raised—i.e., a ground identified by the court sua sponte—without first providing notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, and whether a court of appeals may affirm such a grant by holding that the non-movant “waived” her right to respond to a ground she was never given the opportunity to address in the first place. 2. Whether a court of appeals violates the Seventh Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), when it affirms summary judgment by (a) drawing factual inferences against the non-moving party, (b) making its own factual findings based on a selective reading of the record, and (c) treating as “waived on appeal” claims the non-movant fully preserved and supported in the district court.
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Supreme Court case awaiting argument
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
Kimberly R. Sweidy has asked the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit case about summary judgment (a decision without a trial). Her petition says a court should not end a case on a ground it raised on its own without notice and a fair chance to respond, and should not read disputed facts against the non-moving party.
Argument
The case is at the certiorari (the Court's decision whether to hear a case) stage, and no oral argument is scheduled. The petition argues the lower courts denied notice before summary judgment and improperly drew facts against the non-moving party.
Impact
The case could affect how easily judges can end civil suits before a jury hears them. For example, a person suing a company could lose on a theory the judge raised alone, then be told the issue was waived on appeal.
What is the core dispute in Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy?
The petition says judges should not grant summary judgment on a new ground without notice and time to respond. It also says appeals courts should not draw facts against the side opposing summary judgment.
Who could be affected by the issues in Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy?
People in civil lawsuits could be affected, especially parties facing summary judgment before trial. A judge's surprise legal theory could end a case without a full chance to answer.
What happens next in Sweidy v. Spring Ridge Academy?
The justices will decide whether to grant certiorari (agree to hear the case). No oral argument is scheduled yet, and no decision window is available.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 23, 2026
- Method
- Methodology