Opinion ID: 2461842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Standards on Summary Judgment

Text: ¶ 62 The majority errs in the first instance by failing to apply established standards regarding summary judgment. The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid a useless trial when there is no genuine issue of any material fact. Olympic Fish Prods., Inc. v. Lloyd, 93 Wash.2d 596, 602, 611 P.2d 737 (1980). The burden of proving by uncontroverted facts that no genuine issue exists is upon the moving party. Id. In contrast to this well-settled principle, the majority contends that Burton must plead and prove facts that would prove the fraud exception. Majority at 786. The majority believes this is so because of GARA's requirement that facts necessary to prove a knowing misrepresentation, withholding, or concealment must be pleaded with specificity. Id. (quoting GARA § 2(b)(1)). ¶ 63 But with this reasoning, the majority mistakenly collapses a pleading requirement into the standards on summary judgment. Burton's obligation is to plead facts necessary to prove fraud. It is then up to a fact finder to determine whether those facts do indeed prove fraud. The question on summary judgment is completely separate whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the applicability of GARA § 2(b)(1). The majority's reasoning places an impossible and impermissible burden on a party seeking exception to GARA's statute of repose to prove his case a matter of law on the face of his pleadings in response to the moving party's summary judgment motion. ¶ 64 We review summary judgment rulings de novo. Summary judgment is properly granted when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998). After the moving party submits adequate affidavits [showing there is no genuine issue of fact], the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts which sufficiently rebut the moving party's contentions and disclose the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact. White v. State, 131 Wash.2d 1, 9, 929 P.2d 396 (1997). The ultimate burden remains at all times on the moving party. See Balise v. Underwood, 62 Wash.2d 195, 199, 381 P.2d 966 (1963). [R]easonable inferences from the evidence must be resolved against the moving party. Folsom, 135 Wash.2d at 663, 958 P.2d 301. Thus, it is Twin Commander's burden to show there is no genuine issue of material fact, and it is Burton's obligation to identify facts that raise reasonable inferences as to the applicability of GARA § 2(b)(1). It is not Burton's burden on summary judgment to present us with a `smoking gun,' as the majority seems to require. Majority at 787-88. When these standards remain in focus, summary judgment is inappropriate in this case.