Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Summary Judgment

“The Hawai'i Supreme Court has often articulated that summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Au v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Iolani, No. CAAP-16-0000654, at *15 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).)

“That standard is applicable in both the trial and the reviewing court.” (See K.M. Young Assoc., Inc. v. Cieslik (1983) 4 Haw. App. 657, 663-64.)

“A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties.” (See Au v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Iolani, No. CAAP-16-0000654, at *15 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).)

“The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” (See id.)

“In other words, we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” (See id.)

Burdens of the Moving and Non-moving Parties for a Motion for Summary Judgment

“This court has further explained the burdens of the moving and non-moving parties on summary judgment as follows.” (See Tri-S Corp. v. Western World Ins. Co. (2006) 110 Haw. 473, 488; French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc. (2004) 105 Hawai`i 462, 470, 99 P.3d 1046, 1054.)

“The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment (moving party) to show the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

“This burden has two components.” (See id.)

“First, the moving party has the burden of producing support for its claim that: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the essential elements of the claim or defense which the motion seeks to establish or which the motion questions; and (2) based on the undisputed facts, it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

“Only when the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production does the burden shift to the non-moving party to respond to the motion for summary judgment and demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of trial.” (See id.)

“Second, the moving party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.” (See id.)

“This burden always remains with the moving party and requires the moving party to convince the court that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving part is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” (See id.)

To summarize, “on a motion for summary judgment where the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant has the initial burden of either (1) presenting evidence negating an element of the non-movant's claim, or (2) demonstrating that the non-movant will be unable to carry its burden of proof at trial.” (See Au v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Iolani, No. CAAP-16-0000654, at *17-18 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Summary Judgment

“The appellate court reviews "the circuit court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo." (See Querubin v. Thronas (2005) 107 Hawai'i 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697; Au v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Iolani, No. CAAP-16-0000654, at *15 (Haw. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2021).)

“Accordingly, [o]n appeal, an order of summary judgment is reviewed under the same standard applied by the circuit courts.” (See Joslin v. Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, Inc., No. CAAP-15-0000545, at *7 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2019).)

“Summary judgment must be used with due regard for its purpose and should be cautiously invoked so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of disputed factual issues.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Summary Judgment

It is well settled that “the non-moving party in a properly supported motion for summary judgment must respond by affidavit or otherwise setting forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact and may not rely on allegations of the pleadings.” (See Costa v. Able Distributors, Inc. (1983) 3 Haw. App. 486, 653 P.2d 101; K.M. Young Assoc., Inc. v. Cieslik (1983) 4 Haw. App. 657, 664.)

As such, it is also well settled that “HRCP 56(e) requires that affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment be made on personal knowledge and set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence." (See Matter of Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc. (1994) 76 Haw. 1, 12.)