Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 8 of 28 PagelD.3068 <br /> STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> A. Summary Judgment <br /> A party is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil <br /> Procedure 56(a) "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any <br /> material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."' Where <br /> the movant bears the burden of proof, "it must come forward with evidence which <br /> would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted." <br /> Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992). In other words, the <br /> movant "must establish beyond controversy every essential element" of its claim. <br /> S. California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) <br /> (quotation marks and citation omitted). In assessing a motion for summary <br /> judgment, all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving <br /> party. Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005). <br /> Where the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the <br /> standard does not change. Rather, the Court "evaluate[s] each motion separately, <br /> giving the nonmoving party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable <br /> inferences." A.C.L.U. of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790-91 (9th <br /> Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). <br /> $Where a motion for summary judgment follows the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the <br /> Court's prior ruling "does not constitute the law of the case and the parties are free to litigate the <br /> merits." City ofAnaheim v. Duncan, 658 F.2d 1326, 1328 n.2 (9th Cir. 1981). <br /> - 8 - <br />