Cited by

“The burden of persuasion on [a] summary judgment motion is heavy” and “‘[w]here the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.’” Nat’l

¶ 20 (App. 2008) (party is entitled to summary judgment if “no reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence” that the claim could be established) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

See Nat.’l ¶ 26, (citation omitted).

See Nat’l -19, ¶¶ 22-26, -84 (App. 2008).

¶3 After the moving party comes “forward with evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” the burden shifts to the non-moving party, who “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.” 119, ¶¶ 14, 26, 984 (App. 2008); Ariz. R. Civ.

See Nat’l ¶¶ 28-29, (the movant must demonstrate there is insufficient evidence in the record of any affirmative defense before being entitled to summary judgment).

P. 56(a); Nat’l ¶ 14 (App. 2008).

¶14 We disagree that they presented “sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute as to a material fact.” Nat’l ¶ 26

P. 56(e)(4); Nat’l -15, ¶ 12, -80 (App. 2008) (party opposing a summary judgment motion must produce evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact once the moving party satisfies its initial burden).4 Accordingly, the superior court properly entered summary 4 After the superior court entered its rulin

P. 56(a); see also Nat’l -15, ¶¶ 12-14, -80 (App. 2008).

Nat’l -15, ¶ 12, -80 (App. 2008).

Id.; see also Nat’l ¶ 27, (noting that proponent has evidentiary burden to prove affirmative defense).

¶ 27 , Next Gen was not required to present evidence negating an affirmative defense by the non-moving party.