Re: Can you clarify?

A summary judgment proceeding seeks a judgment because there are no disputed material facts, and so either the plaintiff or defendant is entitled to jdugment as a matter of law. If a court rules any of the parties' material facts are disputed, creating triable issues of fact for a trier of fact, summary judgment cannot be granted. But disputing a fact requires admissible evidence, not just saying the other party is wrong. If one side does not support its side with admissible evidence, a court will rule there are no disputed material facts and grant summary judgment.

In granting summary judgment, the trial court has ruled there are no material disputed facts. When you appeal, the appellate court looks de novo (it reviews the separate statements and evidentiary objections and points and authorities on its own) to see if there are any material disputed facts, and if so, then it will reverse and remand for a trial. If the appeals court rules there are no disputed material facts and the trial court was right, then it will either affirm if the trial court applied the law correctly, or reverse if it did not.

Re: Can you clarify?

Just as the trial court was supposed ot do, the appellate court will examine the facts which the moving party claimed were undisputed and those which the opposing party claimed were disputed. It will decide which of these claims are supported by admissible evidence and will then decide whether those claims leave any triable issues of material fact. If they don't, it will affirm the summary judgment.

Re: Can you clarify?

The Court of Appeal looks at the record which was established in the trial court. It will not look at any new evidence. The evidence, assuming it was admissible or that no objection was made to its admissibility, properly offered in the trial court will be looked at by the Court of Appeal. If the evidence creates a dispute of material fact in the view of the Court of Appeal, it will reverse the trial court's summary judgment; if in the Court of Appeal's view the evidence in the trial court established that the relevant material facts were undisputed, and the trial court properly applied the law to those undisputed material facts, then the Court of Appeal will affirm the trial court's summary judgment.

Re: Can you clarify?

As the other lawyers have explained, summary judgment can be granted only when there is no actual dispute as to any facts that matter to the legal resolution of the lawsuit. In legalese, the facts that matter to the resolution are called “material” facts. Sometimes, there are indeed disputed facts, but the dispute over the facts does not matter (is not material), meaning that the lawsuit is resolved based on something other than a determination (a trial) on whose version on the disputed facts is the correct one. If that is so, then summary judgment is proper because a “trial” on the disputed facts is not necessary. At other times, the dispute over the alleged fact dispute might be material, but the dispute is not “actual” (in a legal sense), because the party who has to prove the alleged facts (usually, the plaintiff) does not have and could not come up with the needed evidence to prove the truth of the facts that are alleged. In that situation, too, summary judgment is proper because a full blown trial would be a waste of time and resources. In making the decision of whether there is a “material” dispute which is “actual” that requires a full trial, the court gives the plaintiff, the benefit of any doubt (i.e., decides "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").

When a summary judgment is appealed, the appeal tribunal reviews the lower court’s decision “de novo” (anew) which means the appeal court determines whose position was correct in the summary judgment proceedings without giving any deference to the decision of the lower court judge. If on appeal, it is determined that there is, or could be, an actual disputed fact issue present in the case that is “material” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit, the summary judgment will be overturned, and the lawsuit can then proceed to a full "trial" of the disputed facts.