Opinion ID: 2459972
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Any deficiency in the explanation of how to oppose the motion for summary judgment was harmless.

Text: The superior court did not advise Azimi that he needed to file admissible evidence in opposition to Johns's summary judgment motion. As Azimi notes in his brief, we held in Jennings v. State that when evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the superior court should [go] outside the pleadings to consider the entire setting of the case to the extent the material was brought to the court's attention by the parties on the motion. [30] In Breck we noted, Even where affidavits have not been submitted, the trial court still has a duty to consider the evidence referred to by the party opposing summary judgment. [31] Just as we found in Breck, in this case [t]here is no indication that the superior court ... failed to fulfill that duty. [32] The court told Azimi, [y]ou haven't responded with the kinds of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact in opposition to the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on wage loss. The superior court never mentioned the absence of affidavits or other admissible evidence. It is possible that the superior court did not consider Azimi's trip sheetswhich had been lodged at the court's December 29 pretrial conference and served as the basis for Azimi's opposition to the motion for summary judgmentbut we find such speculation unwarranted. As discussed more fully below, the trip sheets did not raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat Johns's motion for partial summary judgment. Even if Azimi had submitted the trip sheets in affidavit form, the evidence would not have changed the merits of his opposition. Any deficiency in the court's explanation of the proper form for Azimi's opposition was harmless.