Cited by

Nat’l ¶ 12 (App. 2008) (as amended).

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

Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008); Ariz. R. Civ.

Further, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.” Nat’l ¶17 (App. 2008) (citation modified).

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.