Opinion ID: 3051459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This appeal is governed by two standards of review. First, this Court reviews de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment and applies the same standards applied by the district court. Acevedo v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 357 F.3d 1244, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 344 F.3d 1294, 1303 (11th Cir. 2003). A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). On a summary judgment motion, the record and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Constr. Co., 320 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2003). “When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we may affirm on any adequate ground, regardless of whether the district court relied on that ground.” Eco Solutions, LLC v. Verde Biofuels, Inc., 518 Fed. Appx. 790, 5 Case: 12-14588 Date Filed: 12/13/2013 Page: 6 of 19 791 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1560 (11th Cir. 1994)). Second, this Court reviews a district court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for abuse of discretion. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997).