§ 3.7.2.6.1 Summary Judgments.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.1 Summary Judgments. Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Johnson v. Earnhardt’s Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 212 Ariz. 381, 385, ¶ 15, 132 P.3d 825, 829 (2006). That determination is made de novo. See Acosta v. Kiewit-Sundt, 234 Ariz. 75, 76, ¶ 4, 316 P.3d 1263, 1264 (App. 2014). Summary judgment is proper when the evidence presented by the party opposing the motion has so little probative value, given the required burden of proof, that reasonable jurors could not agree with the opposing party’s position. See Dillon v. Zeneca Corp., 202 Ariz. 167, 170, ¶ 5, 42 P.3d 598, 601 (App. 2002).

The appellate court reviews trial court summary judgments and partial summary judgments de novo. See Weitz Co. L.L.C. v. Heth, 235 Ariz. 405, 408, ¶ 11, 333 P.3d 23 (2014); In re Gen Adj. Adju of All Rights To Use Water, 231 Ariz. 8,12, ¶ 12, 289 P.3d 936, 940 (2012); Engler v. Gulf Interstate Eng’g, Inc., 230 Ariz. 55, 57, ¶ 8, 280 P.3d 599, 601 (2012); Alpha LLC v. Dartt, 232 Ariz. 303, 305, ¶ 10, 304 P.3d 1126, 1128 (App. 2013). It will affirm if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. See Tarron v. Bowen Machine & Fabricating, Inc., 225 Ariz. 147, 151, ¶ 16, 235 P.3d 1030, 1034 (2010) (evidence viewed in favor of party against whom summary judgment was entered); City of Phoenix v. Garretson, 232 Ariz. 115, 117, ¶ 9, 302 P.3d 640, 642 (App. 2013); MidFirst Bank v. Chase, 230 Ariz. 366, 368, ¶ 6, 284 P.3d 877, 879 (App. 2012).

The appellate court will affirm the trial court’s decision if there is no legitimate factual issue and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., 204 Ariz. 303, 306, ¶ 6, 63 P.3d 1040, 1043 (App. 2003); United Bank of Ariz. v. Allyn, 167 Ariz. 191, 194-95, 805 P.2d 1012, 1015-16 (App. 1990). The court of appeals also reviews the trial court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo. See In re Estate of Gardner, 230 Ariz. 329, 331, ¶ 7, 283 P.3d 676, 678 (App. 2012).

The standard of review is de novo for both factual and legal determinations. See Sanchez v. City of Tucson, 191 Ariz. 128, 130, ¶ 7, 953 P.2d 168, 170 (1998); Multari v. Gress, 214 Ariz. 557, 558, ¶ 9, 155 P.3d 1081, 1082 (App. 2007) (interpretations of deed restrictions); La Paz Cty. v. Upton, 195 Ariz. 219, 221, ¶ 4, 986 P.2d 252, 254 (App. 1999). More specifically, the appellate court determines de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court properly applied the law. See Schwager v. VHS Acquisition Corp./Vanguard Health Mgmt., 213 Ariz. 414, 415, ¶ 5, 142 P.3d 1227, 1228 (App. 2006); Case Corp. v. Gehrke, 208 Ariz. 140, 143, ^{¶ 10, 91 P.3d 362, 365, (App. 2004); Hanley v. Pearson, 204 Ariz. 147, 148-49, ¶ 5, 61 P.3d 29, 30-31 (App. 2003). Effectively, the appellate court applies the same standard as did the trial court in ruling on the summary judgment motion in the first instance. See Bernal v. Loeks, 196 Ariz. 363, 364, ¶ 6, 997 P.2d 1192, 1193 (App. 2000).}

^{A summary judgment decision is reviewed on the record made in the trial court, considering only the evidence presented to the trial court when it addressed the motion. See} Vig v. Nix Project II P’ship, 221 Ariz. 393, ¶ 10, 212 P.3d 85, 88 (App. 2009); ^{Brookover v. Roberts Entrs., Inc., 215 Ariz. 52, 55, ¶ 8, 156 P.3d 1157, 1160 (App. 2007). One appealing a summary judgment may not advance new theories or raise new issues to secure a reversal on appeal. See Best v. Edwards, 217 Ariz. 497, 504, ¶ 28, 176 P.3d 695, 702 (App. 2008). Although appellate courts review summary judgments on the basis of the record made in the trial court, they apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating whether summary judgment was proper. See Modular Min. Sys., Inc. v. Jigsaw Techs., Inc., 221 Ariz. 515, 518, ¶ 9, 212 P.3d 853, 856 (App. 2009); Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236, 240, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003); Hohokam Irr. & Drainage Dist. v. Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co., 204 Ariz. 394, 396-97, ¶ 5, 64 P.3d 836, 838-39 (2003).}

^{In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court considers those portions of the verified pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which are brought to the court’s attention by the parties. 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 depends on the volume and complexity of the specific litigation in which the motion for summary judgment is filed. See Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, ¶ 10 & n.4, 204 P.3d 1082, 1086} n.4 ^{(App. 2009) (noting conflicting opinions).}

^{Denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In doing so, the appellate court views the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Sonoran Desert}...