Opinion ID: 1193761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: legal principles governing summary judgment motions

Text: A summary judgment motion challenges the very existence or legal sufficiency of the claim or defense to which it is addressed. First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 396, 772 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1989) (citation and internal quotes omitted). In effect[,] the moving party takes the position that he [or she] is entitled to prevail because his [or her] opponent has no valid claim for relief or defense to the action[.] Id. (citation and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, the moving party has the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 396, 772 P.2d at 1190; Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Hawai`i 28, 37, 924 P.2d 196, 205 (1996) (citation omitted). The moving party may discharge his [or her] burden by demonstrating that if the case went to trial there would be no competent evidence to support a judgment for his [or her] opponent. First Hawaiian Bank, 70 Haw. at 396, 772 P.2d at 1190 (citation omitted); cf. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (a party moving for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 need not support his or her motion with affidavits or similar materials that negate his or her opponent's claims, but need only point out that there is absence of evidence to support the opponent's claims). For if no evidence could be mustered to sustain the nonmoving party's position, a trial would be useless. First Hawaiian Bank, 70 Haw. at 397, 772 P.2d at 1190 (citation brackets, and ellipsis omitted). When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his [or her] pleading, but his [or her] response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [HRCP Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he [or she] does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him [or her]. HRCP Rule 56(e) (1998) (emphasis added). In other words, [a] party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot discharge his or her burden by alleging conclusions, nor is he [or she] entitled to a trial on the basis of a hope that he can produce some evidence at that time. Henderson v. Professional Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 401, 819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991) (citation omitted). On motion for summary judgment, [t]he evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. State v. Tradewinds Elec. Serv. & Contracting, Inc., 80 Hawai`i 218, 222, 908 P.2d 1204, 1208 (1995) (citation omitted).