§ 3.3.1.5 Appeals Relating To Summary Judgments.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.3.1.5 Appeals Relating To Summary Judgments. Final judgments pursuant to motions for summary judgment disposing of an entire case are appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(B). An order granting a timely motion to reconsider a final summary judgment also has been held appealable under A.R.S. § 12-2101(C). See Eng’rs v. Sharpe, 117 Ariz. 413, 416, 573 P.2d 487, 490 (1977).

In Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 306-11, 802 P.2d 1000, 1005-10 (1990), the supreme court adopted federal standards for the Arizona courts to use in determining whether a summary judgment should be granted. However, Arizona courts remain able to deny summary judgment “even where there is apparently no genuine dispute over any material fact.” Id. at 309 n.11, 802 P.2d at 1008 n.11 (citing CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., 10A FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2728, at 187-88 (2d ed. 1983)).

Summary judgment may be entered either for or against the moving party based on the record then before the trial court, even though the opposing party has not filed such a motion. See Trimmer v. Ludtke, 105 Ariz. 260, 263, 462 P.2d 809, 812 (1969); Johnson v. Collins, 11 Ariz. App. 327, 329 n.1, 464 P.2d 647, 649 n.1 (1970). However, a court should not reverse a summary judgment and order judgment for a nonmoving party based on an issue that the movant had no opportunity to dispute in the trial court. See Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 212 Ariz. 381, 387, ¶ 25, 132 P.3d 825, 831 (2006).

A summary judgment entered in defendant’s favor on the entire claim, but silent on defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01, has been held final and appealable notwithstanding the absence of Rule 54(b) language. See Title Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Acumen Trading Co., 121 Ariz. 525, 526, 591 P.2d 1302, 1303 (1979). But see § 3.3.1.4 concerning rules for entry of judgment when attorneys’ fees are claimed.

An order denying summary judgment is neither appealable nor generally subject to review on appeal from a final judgment. See Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. James, 118 Ariz. 116, 117 n.1, 575 P.2d 315, 316 n.1 (1978); Focus Point Properties, LLC v. Johnson, 235 Ariz. 170, 175, ¶ 25, 330 P.3d 360, 365 (App. 2014); State ex rel. Horne v. AutoZone, Inc., 227 Ariz. 471, 479 n.10, ¶ 24, 258 P.3d 289, 297 n.10 (App. 2011) (denial of summary judgment generally not appealable), vacated in part on other grounds, 229 Ariz. 358, 275 P.2d 1278 (2012); Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co., 191 Ariz. 464...