Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 52 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 7 of 17 <br /> II. STANDARD OF REVIEW <br /> Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of <br /> material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. <br /> R. Civ. P. 56(c). Rule 56(c) mandates summary judgment "against a party who <br /> fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential <br /> to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." <br /> Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Broussard v. Univ. of <br /> Cal. at Berkeley, 192 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999). <br /> "A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of <br /> informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of <br /> the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine <br /> issue of material fact." Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th <br /> Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323); see also Jespersen v. Harrah's <br /> Operating Co., 392 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004). "When the moving party has <br /> carried its burden under Rule 56(c) its opponent must do more than simply show <br /> that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . [and] come <br /> forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." <br /> Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (citation <br /> and internal quotation signals omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., <br /> 7 <br />