Cited by

¶ 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 .

To prevail, a plaintiff must prove the nine elements of fraud with particularity, and by clear and convincing evidence

lsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the speaker’s intent that it be acted upon by the recipient in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer’s reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer’s right to rely on it; (9) the hearer’s consequent and proximate injury.” –92, ¶ 14 (App. 2010) ¶35 Accord argues that “fraud can be proven by circumstantial evidence,” and that it presented such evide

- 92 ¶ 14 (App. 2010) (fraud); ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (consumer fraud); St.

¶18 We view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” ¶ 19 (App. 2010), but Losch must have introduced sufficient evidence to counter the award of summary judgment.

Rather, even in the face of Nguyen’s failure to offer opposing evidence, Arete maintained the burden of persuasion, and Nguyen could have shown Arete’s evidence “is susceptible to different assessments by a reasonable finder of fact.” –93, ¶ 20 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment must “submit[] undisputed admissible evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on every element of its claim.” ¶ 20 (App. 2010).

–93, ¶¶ 19-20 (App. 2010).

To carry its burden of proof, the party seeking summary judgment must submit “undisputed admissible evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on every element of its claim.” ¶ 20 (App. 2010).

“[W]here the evidence or inferences would permit a jury to resolve a material issue in favor of either party, summary judgment is improper.” ¶ 19 (App. 2010) (internal quotation omitted).

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment thus must “submit[] undisputed admissible evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on every element of its claim.” ¶ 20 (App. 2010).

In response, if Greenberg failed to “establish a prima facie case worthy of submission to a jury,” then the defendants are “necessarily entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” ¶ 18 (App. 2010); accord Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

¶22 In the context of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, if the “plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case worthy of submission to a jury,” then the “defendant is necessarily entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” ¶ 18 (App. 2010); accord Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v. Allen, ¶ 18 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2010)).

Comerica Bank v. 6 ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

¶16 To carry its burden of persuasion, the moving party must submit “undisputed admissible evidence that would compel any reasonable juror to find in its favor on every element of its claim.” ¶ 20 (App. 2010).

might blossom into a real controversy in the midst of trial."); ¶ 16 n.3 (App. 2010) ("A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not entitled to proceed to trial on the mere hope that the jury will disbelieve uncontroverted testimony."); GM Dev.