Opinion ID: 1562952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs Were Required to Proffer Competent Evidence

Text: When a trial court considers a motion for summary judgment, it must view all evidence and inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Nevertheless, once the moving party has carried its initial burden, [t]he opposition [to summary judgment] must consist of more than conclusory allegations, and be supported by affidavits or other competent evidence tending to prove disputed material issues of fact. Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Federal Credit Union, 952 A.2d 878, 892 (D.C.2008). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must offer competent evidence admissible at trial showing that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact. Sanchez v. Magafan, 892 A.2d 1130, 1132 (D.C.2006) (quoting Hill v. White, 589 A.2d 918, 921 (D.C.1991) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accord, Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 48 (D.C.1979) (Summary judgment should be granted to the movant unless the opposing party offers competent evidence admissible at trial showing that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact.). Plaintiffs understandably are handicapped in meeting their burden because Ms. Hamilton died before the complaint was filed and her testimony was not preserved in a deposition.