Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Washington

What Is a Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment?

Background

“Summary judgment is appropriate only 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” (See Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“A material fact is one the outcome of the litigation depends on, in whole or in part.” (See Coggle v. Snow (1990) 56 Wn.App. 499, 509, 784 P.2d 554; Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“This court views all facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (See Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Summary judgment is appropriate only if reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion from all the evidence.” (See Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact.” (See George v. Sen, No. 48222-3-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016).)

“A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that there is no issue of material fact.” (See Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“Once the defendant does this, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce an affidavit from a qualified expert witness that alleges specific facts establishing a cause of action.” (See id.)

“Evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment must be admissible.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“This court reviews a summary judgment order de novo, engaging in the same inquiry as the trial court.” (See Davies v. Holy Family Hosp. (2008) 144 Wn.App. 483, 491, 183 P.3d 283; Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“On a summary judgment, the trial court does not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility.” (See Barker v. Advanced Silicon Materials, LLC (2006) 131 Wn.App. 616, 624, 128 P.3d 633; Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“This court also does not do so on appeal. This court's job is to pass upon whether a burden of production has been met, not whether the evidence produced is persuasive.” (See Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

“That is the jury's role, once a burden of production has been met.” (See id.)

“Where a trial court's denial of summary judgment is based on the existence of disputed material facts, we will not review it when raised after a trial on the merits.” (See Weiss v. Lonnquist (2013) 173 Wn.App. 344, 354, 293 P.3d 1264.)

"Where the pretrial order denying summary judgment is premised on a question of law, however, the court can review that order even after a full trial on the merits." (See id; George v. Sen, No. 48222-3-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “CR 56(e) requires that evidence offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment be in the form of sworn affidavits or declarations made under penalty of perjury." (See Young Soo Kim v. Choong-Hyun Lee (2013) 174 Wn.App. 319, 326, 300 P.3d 431; Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

It is also well settled that “to survive summary judgment, expert testimony must be based on facts in the case, not speculation or conjecture." (See Seybold v. Neu (2001) 105 Wn.App. 666, 677, 19 P.3d 1068; Hedman v. Crum, No. 33318-3-III, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2016).)

Documents for Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Washington

Sort By

STELMAN ET AL VS AMAZON.COM INC ET AL document preview

NTHG - Notice of Hearing

3 pages

FILED THE HONORABLE JOHN McHALE 2023 JUL 19 12:34 PM Department 43 KING COUNTY Noted for Consideration: July 21, 2023 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK Without Oral Argument E-FILED