Opinion ID: 1849825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Hursts' Lack of Response To Southwest's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: In their reply brief, Southwest and Burnett argue that by failing to file a response to the motion for summary judgment, the Hursts waived their right to challenge the judgment. This Court has held that when a motion for summary judgment is filed, the non-moving party must rebut by producing significant probative evidence showing that there are indeed genuine issues for trial. McMichael v. Nu-Way Steel & Supply, 563 So.2d 1371, 1375 (Miss. 1990); Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1041 (1990). This burden of rebuttal arises, however, only after the moving party has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Otherwise, there would be nothing for the non-moving party to rebut. Our rules do not require a party to file a formal response to a motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(e) states: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. (Emphasis added). The rule does not entitle a party to summary judgment by default where the non-moving party files no response. Even in the absence of a response, the court may enter judgment only if appropriate; i.e., if no genuine issue of material fact exists. Rule 56(c) likewise implies that a response is optional by suggesting that [t]he adverse party prior to the day of the hearing may serve opposing affidavits. (Emphasis added). Stated conversely, a party need not serve such affidavits if what he has already placed before the court demonstrates a triable issue of material fact notwithstanding the opposing party's motion for summary judgment. A trial court must deny a summary judgment motion, even if the non-moving party makes no response whatsoever, so long as all the data before the court, including pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, raises a triable issue concerning a disputed material fact. See Rule 56(c); Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss. 1983). In the instant case, Southwest built its summary judgment motion around the proposition that Burnett's acts, as a matter of law, did not cause the plaintiffs' injury. The voluminous exhibits to Southwest's motion for summary judgment contain nothing to demonstrate that the defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Consequently, the risk of non-persuasion never shifted to the Hursts. Their failure to file a response to Southwest's motion for summary judgment does not amount to a waiver of their right to appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment. D.