Cited by

¶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).

See Nat’l ¶ 27 (App. 2008) (proponent of affirmative defense has burden of proof) (as amended).

¶23 Plaintiff further contends that summary judgment was improper because the Hospital presented no evidence that the rapid response team “would not have saved [Donald].” But Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden to prove her tort claim at trial, and the Hospital “does not need to present evidence disproving the non-moving party’s claim.” Nat’l

Nat’l ¶ 14 (a party seeking summary judgment must provide evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and “explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor”).

“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 burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute as to a material fact.” Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008).

Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008), as amended (Jan.

Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008); see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Indus.

See Nat’l ¶ 17 (App. 2008) (“[A] court must view the [summary judgment] evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.”).

P. 56(a); Nat’l ¶ 14 (App. 2008).

See Nat’l -15, ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

Thus, Sharp did not involve a presumptively valid Rule 69 agreement, but instead was decided on summary judgment where the moving party bears the burden of proof, see Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008), and because there was a 5 The court did err, in the Decree, when it specifically found “[t]here [were] no protective orders currently in place.” The record shows that at the September 29 hearing, the parties informally advised the court of the existence of an order of protection and the

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, “the non-moving party must call the court’s attention to evidence overlooked or ignored by the moving party or must explain why the motion should otherwise be denied.” Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008).

P. 56(a) ; Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston , , 115, ¶ 14, , 980 (App. 2008).

Nat’l -15, ¶ 12 (App. 2008).

¶15 To defeat a motion for summary judgment, “the non-moving party must call the court’s attention to evidence overlooked or ignored by the moving party or must explain why the motion should otherwise be denied.” Nat’l ¶ 26 (App. 2008).

See Nat’l -19, ¶¶ 16-29 (App. 2008) (stating conclusory statements will not suffice, but that the movant must point to relevant evidentiary materials).

3 STATE/ADOR v. BOSCH Decision of the Court believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” and “explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor.” Nat’l ¶ 14 (citing Orme Sch.