Cited by

Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008); Ariz. R. Civ.

In contrast, when the party opposing summary judgment has the burden of proof, the moving party need not “present evidence disproving the non-moving party’s claim or defense.” Nat’l

See Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008) (when the moving party meets its initial burden, then the nonmoving party must address overlooked evidence or explain why the moving party’s motion lacks merit).

v. Allen, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) (citation omitted); Nat’l ¶ 15 (App. 2008).

If the moving party makes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to “come forward with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial.” Nat’l ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

¶ 18 (App. 2010); Nat’l ¶¶ 22–23 (App. 2008); see also Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 309 (holding that summary judgment is proper “if the facts produced in support of the claim .

As the party moving for summary judgment but without the burden of proof at trial, Old Town could obtain summary judgment if it showed that “no evidence exist[ed] to support an essential element of [Hernandez’s] claim[s].” See Nat’l ¶ 22 (App. 2008).

“Initially, a party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Nat’l –15 ¶ 12 (App. 2008), as amended (Jan.

¶14 “When a moving party meets its initial burden of production by showing that the non-moving party does not have enough evidence to carry its ultimate burden of proof at trial,” the non-moving party must then “present sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute as to a material fact.” Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).

¶ 26 (App. 2008); ¶ 10 n.4 (App. 2009) ("There are differing views expressed in the case law as to whether an appellate court or a trial court must perform an independent search of the record for facts not presented by a party opposing summary judgment.") (collecting case

Nat’l –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

¶37 “In Arizona, a summary judgment motion sets in play shifting burdens.” Nat’l

See Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

¶17 When the moving party is a plaintiff claiming breach of contract, that plaintiff bears a heavy burden to prove every element of the claim with “undisputed admissible evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor.” Wells Fargo Bank, 231 Ariz. at 213, ¶ 18 (citation omitted); Nat’l ¶ 15 (App. 2008).

Nat’l ¶ 13 n.3 (App. 2008).

Nat’l –15, ¶ 12 (App. 2008).