Century City Mall v. Snowfin Franchise Group CA2/2

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review

“A trial court properly grants a motion for summary judgment only if no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.) On appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court has granted a motion for summary judgment, we examine the record de novo. (Ibid.) We must liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve any doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Ibid.) The moving party “bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts and the opposing party has the burden of showing a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.) The opposing party must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support its position. (Ibid.)

II. Snowfin failed to raise a triable issue of fact

A. Century City met its burden As the moving party, Century City had the initial burden to make…