Opinion ID: 6216837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary. Anderson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 297 F.3d 242, 246-47 (3d Cir. 2002); Razak v. Uber Techs., 951 F.3d 137, 144 (3d Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. When a court reviews a motion for summary judgment, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Razak, 951 F.3d at 144. The court must grant the motion if, after adequate time for discovery, the non-moving party has failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [its] case, and on which [it] [would] bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).