Opinion ID: 458598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: mnb's cross-appeal

Text: 5 MNB appeals the district court's denial of its first motion for summary judgment. Counsel for MNB all but conceded at oral argument, however, that this appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm the district court. 6 Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party has sustained its burden of proving that there exists no genuine issue of material fact after reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. [citations omitted]. The district court's order granting a summary judgment motion is not a discretionary decision and thus will be independently reviewed by the appellate court. 7 Wong v. Bailey, 752 F.2d 619, 620-21 (11th Cir.1985). The decision to deny a summary judgment, however, is discretionary with a trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. Bryant, 671 F.2d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir.1982); see also Marcus v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (a district court may, in a proper case, deny harsh remedy of summary judgment even if the motion is justifiable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, if the court, in the sound exercise of judicial discretion, decides to give the parties an opportunity to fully develop the case.). After carefully reviewing the record with these principles in mind, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying MNB's first motion for summary judgment. 8 AFFIRMED.